..Pry it from my Cold Dead Fingers

The recent tragic shootings at Virginia Tech have already started to prompt the perennial debate on guns, gun laws, and whether or not citizens should even own them.

Guns have their purpose. They can stop a rapists from attacking you, shoot a deer in the head for dinner, or be used as a never ending euphemism to the glory of the male anatomy.

But lets face it, King George has been dead for a while now.

Lets take a look at the infamous second amendment, the right to bear arms:

"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."

Many gun-crazed persons in the NRA have repeatedly cited this as the main protection to owning guns. The fact is, however, the history doesn't really support this.

They often cite that it's all about self-defense. Well, the matter of personal or individual self-defense, whether from wild animals or modern-day predators, does not fall within, nor is it dependent on, the Second Amendment rubric. Nothing in the history, construction, or interpretation of the Amendment applies or infers such a protection. Rather, legal protection for personal self-defense arises from the British common law tradition and modern criminal law; not from constitutional law. The common law right of self defense is legally distinct from the right to bear arms.

The potential connection between the right of self defense and the perceived constitutional protection of a right to keep and bear arms contained in the Second Amendment depends on the distinction whether 'keep and bear arms' is synonymous more broadly with the right of individual self defense or does 'keep and bear arms' pertain more narrowly towards use of arms in a military context, or, in the case of the Common Law while still under the British, in service of the king and country. Clearly, the right to bear arms pertains to a state militia.

Some history-savy NRA persons have even gone so far as to say that if the settlers were not allowed guns in the west, then americans would have been slaughtered by hostile native american tribes. This may be true. But I feel compelled to point out that settlers weren't in america then. They were in territoires, that is, lands that had not been admitted into the union subject to federal law. Thus, its like arguing that Canadians, or any foreign peoples are subject to federal US law.

I'm not suggesting people shouldn't protect themselves. Indeed, I think it's a fundamental right (just not outlined by the second amendment). But, technology has advanced past projectiles hurled by the chemical reactions of gunpowder. One could get the same level of self-defense with a non-lethal weapon. Some may argue, what if multiple persons? I assure you, non-lethals weapons exist that can do this job.

Many pro-gunners believe that the 2nd is the Constitution's way of making sure that our government never becomes tyrannical, and ensures that if it does, we will be able to overthrow it. There are a few reasons why this is not a good argument.

First and most important, the Constitution was a document intended to create a government that could be changed by the people through peaceful means, and it has succeeded for over 200 years to that effect. In fact, America is the oldest continual democracy on earth. Other democratic means already exist to change, or even overthrow, the government. One counter-argument sometimes heard here is that if the government disarms the populace, the populace is ripe for a dictatorial takeover, and cannot fight back. My response to this is simple: America has nearly 300,000,000 citizens. No dictator could "take over" without popular support of these citizens.
There is always the possibility (although an incredibly remote one) that another Hitler may arise to power, democratically elected and supported, and then begin to ignore the basic ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, not only can we elect our leaders, we can un-elect them as well. We have extensive checks and balances to make sure no one person or agency can have too much power, and we have a healthy respect for democracy earned over 200 years. These are features that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan lacked. There is always the possibility that another Hitler will come, yes, but in the meantime, we have at least ten thousand persons a year dying from guns, and countless more injured. We must weigh this certainty against the infinitesimally small chance that our well-constructed checks and balances will suddenly all fail.