America’s Firearm Freedom: The Merits of the Second Amendment and the AR-15
Common misperceptions threaten to deprive Americans of a needed line of defense

The Second Amendment reads plainly, “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.” Yet many gun control advocates argue that the Second Amendment only protects the right of the states to form militias, but not for individuals to privately own firearms (see “No one needs an AR-15, but America needs less gun violence,” The Ring-Tum Phi, Opinion, March 30, 2021).

“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms” cannot mean anything other than the right of individual citizens to own firearms. As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in DC v Heller (2008), the Second Amendment consists of two clauses. The first is a prefatory clause announcing purpose while the second clause is the operative clause and gives the rationale.

The Founders fully intended for Americans to independently arm themselves for the purposes of protection against a tyrannical government. “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” explains the purpose of individual gun ownership – an armed citizenry enables the populace to form a Militia, one with the ability to defend their state against the tyranny of the federal government. 

The Founders empowered Americans with the means to combat executive power because of the events and fears of the late-1700s. But that does not mean the Founders wrote the Second Amendment solely with eighteenth-century technology in mind.

Within the Founders’ lifetime, America saw vast industrialization including innovation in firearms technology. Within the eighteenth-century, firearms evolved from single-shot, smoothbore muskets to early model black powder revolvers with single-action capabilities, shortened muskets with accelerated loading, and even early-stage crank-operated guns. The Founders were not so naïve that they failed to predict the continued evolution of firearm technology.

Even if the Second Amendment protects the right to own a firearm, why should anyone own an AR-15 or an AK-47 or any “assault-style,” child-murdering, semiautomatic rifle? First, dismantle the language that the media uses. “Assault-style” semiautomatic weapons do not exist. There are assault weapons and there are semiautomatic weapons.

Both are distinguished by their mechanisms of action: the way the gun operates. Semiautomatic means that when you pull the trigger, the action cycles once before resetting so that one trigger pull equals one bullet fired. All modern handguns are semiautomatic.

In this way, any semiautomatic rifle is just a scaled-up handgun, which is why they are classified as long guns. An assault weapon, however, is capable of fully automatic fire – the gun cycles by holding the trigger down. This distinction is important: it means an AR is no more dangerous than a hunting rifle with the same action and bullet caliber.

The inability to distinguish semiautomatics from assault weapons plagues many people who lack adequate knowledge about gun ballistics. A .223 (a type of bullet caliber) fired from your granddad’s hunting rifle travels with the same path, has the same velocity, and causes the same bullet damage as the .223 fired from an AR-15.

If both guns are semiautomatic (many, if not most, modern hunting rifles are semiautomatic), then both are capable of the same rate of fire and accuracy. Also, it is worth noting that the AR-15 is not a military rifle and is not implemented by our armed forces. It is a civilian gun chambered in a caliber used as a hunting round since 1964.

Why would anyone need a semiautomatic rifle, specifically an AR-15, for hunting? Probably because people have used .223, .308, .243, and .30 (common rounds used by AR owners) for over a century and have used semiautomatics for even longer. The notion that specific guns should be banned because they are inherently more dangerous is not based in fact, but solely on aesthetics which does not affect gun ballistics. 

Although the AR-15 looks like a gun you could use on Call of Duty, it is a civilian gun implemented for civilian purposes with no more capacity for damage than other modern semiautomatic rifles. In fact, the AR-15 is commonly chambered in .223, which is considered weaker than other hunting rounds. Many states, including my home state of Maryland, require hunters to only use specialized versions of .223 to ensure a humane kill, depending on the animal.

What makes the AR-15 popular is not its looks or capacity for damage, but its versatility. It is a weapon with an evidence-based design and over 60 years of innovation behind it. The AR uses cheap and widely available ammunition and can be changed to accommodate a variety of calibers.

So why would someone use an AR for self-defense? Some say that citizens wishing to defend themselves should just buy a can of pepper spray. But I believe that human beings have a natural right to defend their lives.

As most gun crime involves handguns, the man breaking into your home or mugging you on the street is likely going to use one. You have a right to defend yourself with not only a weapon of equal standing, but one that gives you an advantage.

There are numerous police-involved shootings in which perpetrators are shot upwards of 20 times, including in the head, by police service weapons and yet still attack. This is due to the influence of drugs and the ammunition limitations of handguns. Many officers, such as Sgt. Timothy Gramins, carry large quantities of ammo because these instances are so common.

Rifles offer the capability of higher caliber rounds that have an increased likelihood of stopping a would-be-killer in their tracks. They are equalizers in combat offering more power than a handgun but less than many other firearms. Their ease of use enables women, the elderly, and the disabled to protect themselves against the 300-pound goliath looking to deprive them of life, liberty, and property. 

The opinions expressed in this magazine are the author's own and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Spectator, or any students or other contributors associated with the magazine. It is the intention of The Spectator to promote student thought and civil discourse, and it is our hope to maintain that civility in all discussions