The deadly shooting that took place last Saturday at a mall in Allen, Texas, was just one of a recent string of mass shootings in the United States. Eight victims lost their lives.
With this type of violence, debates about the Constitution are always brought forward. The Second Amendment is under attack probably more than any other amendment in our Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
In response to this most recent mass shooting, anti-gun advocates are once again demanding more gun restrictions.
Here are four common myths surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control.
1. A “well-regulated militia” means gun regulations.
Anti-gun advocates frequently cite the “well-regulated militia” clause. They often believe this refers to gun restrictions or needing to be part of a militia to own firearms.
But upon further analysis, this is not the case. A “well-regulated militia” simply refers to the American people.
“The militia system, with deep roots in English history, was one way of ensuring that the nation could defend itself against all threats, foreign and domestic. Instead of a large full-time professional army, the government could, when needed, call upon the greater body of armed citizens to employ their personal firearms in the collective defense of the state or nation,” as The Heritage Foundation highlighted.
Is more gun control the solution to mass shootings?
Yes: 0% (0 Votes)
No: 0% (0 Votes)
“A ‘well-regulated’ militia simply meant that the processes for activating, training, and deploying the militia in official service should be efficient and orderly, and that the militia itself should be capable of competently executing battlefield operations.”
The 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller also confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Being part of a militia is not required to exercise that right.
2. The right to “keep and bear arms” does not apply to modern weaponry.
The left often claims we do not have a right to own AR-15s and “assault rifles” because they did not exist at the time the Founding Fathers drafted and ratified the Second Amendment.
But this makes little sense. It is analogous to saying free speech rights are not included on the internet or other modern forms of communication because they did not exist at the time the First Amendment was written.
The Founders were brilliant to use the term “arms” since it is a very generic term that includes many forms of firearms. If they specifically intended the amendment to protect the right to keep and bear muskets, all of the handguns and rifles we use today would be in legal jeopardy.
Rep. Jim Jordan highlighted this key distinction in a hearing earlier this year.
.@Jim_Jordan goes off on the importance of protecting the 2nd Amendment: “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Plain and simple. It doesn’t say the right to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed.” pic.twitter.com/L81ytwQUkD
— YAF (@yaf) January 4, 2023
3. Gun control is the only action needed to prevent gun violence.
Gun control advocates say we need to “take action” or “do something” to address gun violence. But their definition of action is always more gun control on top of existing gun control that failed to prevent these shootings.
Despite the calls for more restrictions, it appears that the mall where the Texas shooting took place was already a gun-free zone.
This shows that criminals never obey existing gun laws and, as a result, the only ones who suffer are law-abiding citizens being unable to defend themselves.
More gun control is not the answer. Part of the solution is to eliminate gun-free zones to allow law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm and increase their chances of repelling a potential shooter in the first place.
4. Ted Cruz and Greg Abbott were responsible for the Texas mall shooting.
Unfortunately, we live in a time when gun control advocates blame political opponents when these deadly shootings take place.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. Greg Abbott were among those targeted by this type of rhetoric.
Politicians like California Rep. Eric Swalwell wasted no time smearing Cruz and claiming that he sides with the murderers over the victims.
A 5-year-old died today because @tedcruz continues to choose killers over kids. https://t.co/CYdSPkmrzE
— Rep. Eric Swalwell 🟧 (@RepSwalwell) May 7, 2023
Journalist Steven Beschloss was just one of many who said Abbott had blood on his hands.
Greg Abbott has more blood on his hands.
— Steven Beschloss (@StevenBeschloss) May 7, 2023
Second Amendment advocates are not responsible for any shooting. The blame must be placed on the killers themselves.
If we are going to reduce gun violence, we need to repeal ineffective gun control laws and bring back a culture that instills good faith and morals.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.