The Second Amendment and its impact on the United States and beyond
Gracia Rosemary Richter, Ramsey, Minn., Wadena Pioneer Journal
Published Thursday, October 02, 2008
(Editor’s note: the author, a 10th grader, is the granddaughter of Don and Margaret Richter of Wadena.)

The Second Amendment and its impact on the United States and beyond
Gracia Rosemary Richter, Ramsey, Minn., Wadena Pioneer Journal
Published Thursday, October 02, 2008
(Editor’s note: the author, a 10th grader, is the granddaughter of Don and Margaret Richter of Wadena.)


In 1789, after the Declaration of Independence was written, our founding fathers wanted to empower the public citizen with the ability to further define and secure their rights by writing another document to compliment the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is the second half of a two-part document that outlines the founding structure of America. This structure defines who we are as Americans and continues to mold our daily lives.

RELATED CONTENT
Article comments (2)
This structure makes life in America unique and set apart from all other countries of the world. It is such an integral part of who we are that we don’t think about living without it, like the beating of our hearts. The Bill of Rights ensures that our declaration of independence is protected and saves our basic freedoms. These “freedoms” may seem to have been given to this generation as a gift, but this is far from accurate. These rights were earned on several bloody battlefields through out the years, by other founding fathers, who sacrificed with their lives. These rights would not or could not possibly exist without one special amendment, the right to bear arms, our Second Amendment.

As we grow into a more global society, many people seem to forget it is a privilege to live in a unique society with freedoms. Instead, we seem to want to continue the melting pot experience on a world wide scale which will diminish our uniqueness as Americans. Many other countries have admired our way of life and have even used our Constitution as a model for their own. These countries, France for example, are hundreds of years older than the United States and they still hadn’t found a fair and just way to govern their people. After witnessing our Constitution in action, they emulated it. Many other countries in turmoil still benefit from the example of the United States and they desire and strive to imitate it. Of course this will not happen until they implement the structures that preserves basic human rights in a dignified manner.

Recently, in my home state of Minnesota, we were given the right to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun. Contrary to public fears from the anti-gun lobby, crime rates from those licensed individuals have not gone up as predicted. In many cases, one in which happened less than 15 minutes from my home, guns have preserved and protected human life. An elderly man, living alone and not able to afford a telephone, had two teenage boys break into his home. He was in his bedroom at night and shot one of the boys as he entered the home. Although there was much controversy at the time of the incident, everyone interviewed on our liberal television news said that he acted justly. The dead boy’s own parents said they would have done the same thing.

It is normal human behavior to protect one’s life and home. Even animals have natural instincts to prolong life and defend their territory to increase the longevity and survival of their kind. Why are we threatened with losing this right and told we no longer need it in this day and age. Now, more than ever, we need them. It is unjust that law abiding citizens have to obtain permits for something we are granted in the Bill of Rights, but it also provides information showing that responsible gun users are not the ones in need of changed legislation.

Australia and Switzerland give us a new insight of how a change in law will change our lives. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1996, after a publicized shooting, the Australian government put a ban on weapons. Immediately after the ban, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, assaults by 17 percent, and manslaughter by 29 percent. This information was also reported by the Second Amendment Foundation. It’s clear that if citizens are no longer law abiding, laws to punish them in particular should be created. Rewriting our society’s framework to accommodate the action of criminals will slowly deteriorate the structure which supports us all. The desire to ensure our safety is a concern to everybody, but it is illogical to change the actions of law abiding citizens in the process. Their actions should not be the cause of fear. If we dumb down laws to accommodate the less responsible or the dangerous we are degrading our entire society. This will only bring about less security for our infrastructure.

The other example, also reported by the Second Amendment Foundation, is about Switzerland. The government in Switzerland has a “no interference policy” and doesn’t restrict its citizen from owning firearms. This position has created an interesting situation, the Swiss are some of the most heavily armed people in the world and as a country they have some of the lowest crime rates. This does not seem to follow the logic of the anti-gun lobby, but it makes perfect sense to me. If those two young men had known that the man’s house they were breaking into was armed, they would not have broken into it. How more logical is that, they would have been protecting their own lives.

By teaching and helping understand gun-control we can make America and the world a safer place or as Benjamin Franklin put it, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety, nor, are they likely to end up with either.”

Can you post the text of the editorial? Site requires registration

Recently, in my home state of Minnesota, we were given the right to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun.

Sigh.

Which part hurts the most?
a) "recently"
b) "were given the right"
c) "license to carry a concealed handgun"

Which part hurts the most?
a) "recently"
b) "were given the right"
c) "license to carry a concealed handgun"

It is unjust that law abiding citizens have to obtain permits for something we are granted in the Bill of Rights...

Which part hurts the most?
a) "recently" - I do not consider 2003 recent
b) "were given the right" - you cannot be granted a God-given right
c) "license to carry a concealed handgun" - the permit to carry does not require concealment

a) "recently" - I do not consider 2003 recent

...We've always had the right to carry in some capacity and we've had permits since 1975...

However, I did not know that prior to 1975 no permits were required.

It is unjust that law abiding citizens have to obtain permits for something we are granted in the Bill of Rights...

Which part hurts the most?
a) "recently"
b) "were given the right"
c) "license to carry a concealed handgun"