commonplaces

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
-- Adolf Hitler, April 11 1942

Considered to be one of the most controversial Amendments of the Bill of Rights, the arguments on how to regulate and approach the second amendment have proved to be acutely polarized, yielding viewpoints that span from the minimization of gun regulation to absolute gun banishment. Those who support limited gun regulation often invoke the second amendment itself, which is essentially built up from the commonplace that “guns are a protectionist measure against violent or threatening forces.” This commonplace functions to (theoretically) induce reluctance in any evil interference such as, tyranny, murders, rapists or burglars, that have aims at obstructing liberty or individual well being. This commonplace stems from the founding fathers, who believed that power ought to remain within the people, and in order for the people to maintain this power, they must be afforded the right to bear arms. However, this commonplace connotes an even more basic commonplace that “violent defensive measures are resorted to when all other mediums of diplomacy (such as, protests, rhetorical discourse, pleading, or threats) have failed.” Here, this notion originates from the founding fathers’ experiences of unsuccessful diplomatic dealings with Great Britain, and their success of obtaining their diplomatic pleas through violent revolution. These experiences legitimatize the commonplaces of the second amendment, showing that the availability of firearms is an essential factor in maintaining liberty and individual well being.

‘‘When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ...... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities.’’
— Bill Clinton, 3-22-94

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Considered to be one of the most controversial Amendments of the Bill of Rights, the arguments on how to regulate and approach the second amendment have proved to be acutely polarized, yielding viewpoints that span from the minimization of gun regulation to absolute gun banishment. Those who support absolute gun banishment often invoke that loose firearm regulations increase crime rate, which is derived from the commonplace, “availability to firearms enables violence and crime.” This commonplace functions to simplify crime in society by reducing it to a gun-based phenomenon. The origins of this commonplace typically stem from far-left liberals who tend to favor sacrificing individual liberties for improvement of social welfare. My experiences as a gun owner, as well as crime rate statistics complicate this commonplace by showing that availability to firearms has little effect on crime rate.