The Oberlin Review

Constitution Does Not Automatically Permit AR-15s

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






To the Editors:

The AR-15 must be banned. Like the M-16 used in Vietnam by our military, the AR-15 was designed to kill as many enemy soldiers as possible with the greatest ease and efficiency. Some argued fiercely in the ’60s that the AR-15 should have been our weapon of choice on the battlefield, not the M-16.

Today, the M-16 is not available to the public, but the AR-15 is. It has been the ideal weapon for mass killings and was used in Florida a week ago to slaughter 17 of the brightest lights for our future: those high-school students and young teachers just moments before their school day was to end. Instead, their lives ended.

In 2008, the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the most revered conservative of our time, made it clear in an opinion that the Second Amendment did not give citizens the incontrovertible right to possess any kind of gun. Surely, if that right existed, machine guns capable of slaughtering five or 10 times more children in the same time period would be used by murderers.

Of course, we have a right to bear arms. Scalia just made it abundantly clear that what our founding fathers had in mind in 1791 was not to give us unlimited access to any kind of weapon. He argued compellingly that states have the right to determine — almost 230 years later — what should or should not be available to us. The Constitution does not automatically permit the availability of AR-15s.

Even though the ban of AR-15s will not prevent mass massacres of children and others, we must demand that our legislators support the ban, along with support of improved background checks, mental health programs, etc. Nothing is likely to guarantee the perfectly safe society we seek. But we must not let the perfect become the enemy of the good and do nothing to make progress. Let’s support legislators who support the ban. Celebrate this day.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
1 Comment

One Response to “Constitution Does Not Automatically Permit AR-15s”

  1. Arturo on February 25th, 2018 6:46 PM

    “Like the M-16 used in Vietnam by our military, the AR-15 was designed to kill as many enemy soldiers as possible with the greatest ease and efficiency. Some argued fiercely in the ’60s that the AR-15 should have been our weapon of choice on the battlefield, not the M-16.”

    You are confusing the original AR-15 with the civilian product now marketed under that name. The term “AR-15” originally described the ArmaLite design and prototype which formed the basis of the military M-16. This AR-15 has never been available to the public. The gun you now advocate banning is a different gun altogether.

    Colt bought the AR-15 design rights and trademark in the late ’50s, and then developed a new weapon, one modified and intended for civilian use, and simply gave it the old name. In the ’60s it was never anyone’s recommendation to be “…our weapon of choice on the battlefield”, and no military has ever carried it, nor would any consider doing so–it lacks automatic fire capability, for one thing.

    These are merely technical corrections for you, not statements for or against your proposal to ban the new-name, civilian AR-15. I encourage you to be as accurate as possible on the technical details of firearms, not because they’re important to you personally, but because they are very important to many of those pro-gun Americans you wish to persuade. The more knowledge you demonstrate about those machines which they defend and which you would have banned, the more credibility your argument will have.

Please keep all comments respectful and relevant. The Review does not allow comments containing profanity, foul language, personal attacks, hate speech, or the use of language that might be interpreted as libelous. Comments are only published at the discretion of a moderator.




Established 1874.