Today's installment is in response to Sunny, who made her post in response to a comment I made on another post of hers. Yeah, I know that doesn't make sense, but hopefully my thoughts on the Second Amendment will. Strap in, because I hope this will be a nuanced discussion. It certainly won't be short.
First and foremost, let's talk about the amendment itself. Here's the exact phrasing: "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." From a legal standpoint, the phrase shall not be infringed is a strict limit. It means the government is not allowed to violate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period. End of story. The term shall not legally translates to a command that allows no discretion.
Now, let's explore why this right exists. As stated above, the reason this right exists is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The definition of a militia is a military force that's made up of ordinary citizens, as opposed to full-time soldiers. The historical purpose of the militia was to protect towns and states, and the authority to activate the militia rested with the government. It is logical to infer that, based on the text of the amendment, militia members were expected to provide their own weapons if called into service.
Let's expound on this concept a bit further. When the Bill of Rights was written and ratified, the US had a small standing army, but military strategy relied very heavily on state militias. Over time, the militia evolved into what we would call our current National Guard. The Guard's weapons are now provided by the government, not the private citizen. Additionally, private militias are expressly outlawed in all 50 states. Based on all of this information, the "why" of the second amendment no longer exists. However, shall not be infringed remains. The reason is gone, but the right continues.
There are people who say the right to bear arms exists to protect us from what could be the tyranny of our own state or federal government. That argument has merit, because the concept is brought up in the Federalist Papers. However, I respectfully disagree with that perspective, based on the wording of the amendment, because again, the authority to call up or disband the militia rests with the government.
Before I continue, I would like to clarify that I am not anti gun. I own multiple handguns, rifles and shotguns. Shooting guns is fun. Hunting is fun, and personally, I believe that knowing how to live off the land is a valuable skill. I won't say "You can take my guns from my cold, dead hands," but that statement is reasonably close to my perspective.
With my personal preference out of the way, let's wade into the messy concept of gun control. At the root of the entire debate is the idea of personal rights. Virtually every gun owner I've ever met falls back to this argument... it's my right. Yes, that's true. However, no right is absolute. Your rights end where mine begin. I am not allowed to knowingly spread malicious lies about someone with the intent of harming their reputation or livelihood. Freedom of religion does not allow for human sacrifice. The government has a well-established history of outlawing or heavily regulating products or activities that are likely to cause harm. Lawn darts were banned in the 80s. You need to be 21 or older to legally smoke or consume alcohol. You must pass a test to legally drive a vehicle. Your guns, in fact, can be taken away in few specific circumstances. The ONLY reason this debate exists is because this right was written on a piece of paper over 225 years ago. In short, we are having the wrong discussion.
We should not be arguing about whether or not gun ownership is a right. That's a silly argument. Of course it's a right. It's written in ink. The real question is whether or not gun ownership should be a right. And this is where I'm open to discussion.
I fully agree that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible, and I fully agree that responsible owners should be allowed to keep their firearms. Hunters should be allowed to hunt. People living in the country should be able to defend themselves from predators. Target shooters should be allowed to plink away to their hearts' delight. As it stands today, ordinary citizens should be allowed to carry guns for self protection and home defense. The real issue is that gun rights advocates and gun control advocates are not having the same conversation; they're focused on different problems.
Shooting a gun in the middle of nowhere is far less likely to have an unintended consequence than firing that same weapon in the middle of a highly populated area. I could stand in a field in Bumfuk, MT, spin in a circle and pull the trigger on my Glock to my heart's content and the most likely outcome is that the rounds land harmlessly in the dirt a few yards away. I might hit a cow. If I did the same thing in Times Square, the most likely outcome is that I directly hit several people, and the resulting stampede would kill or injure even more. If I shoot at someone invading my country homestead and I miss, I need to patch holes in my wall. If I miss the intruder invading my apartment in downtown Chicago, it's reasonably likely that I hit a neighbor. And again, my rights end where yours begin.
Saying that we have gun laws does not address the root problem, which is gun violence. Mandatory waiting periods may mitigate the problem of a jealous husband shooting his cheating wife and that louse of a guy she's sleeping with, but it does nothing to deter the radical who wants to shoot an elected official, or the bullied kid who mistakenly believes that killing his classmates will somehow solve his problems. Sentencing a political assassin to death doesn't bring anyone back. Charging a mass shooter with multiple counts of murder is closing the barn door after the horses ran off.
The right to bear arms has not always been absolute. Congress banned the sale of some semi-automatic firearms in 1994, and the ban lasted for ten years. That ban was never contested; congress allowed the ban to expire. Even during the old west era, towns had laws prohibiting firearms in city limits. I understand that many responsible gun owners worry that any attempt at gun control will lead to the eventual loss of their toy. It's a valid fear. It's also a slippery slope argument, which is a logical fallacy.
By the same token, I understand how the family of a mass shooting victim would want to completely outlaw all guns. It's a natural reaction. And the gun lobby is totally unhelpful when they offer the too-often-repeated "pray for the victims" platitude. Funk dat! Prayers don't bring people back from the dead. Prayers don't stop the next homicidal nut job from shooting up another night club, theater or synagogue. Neither does outlawing all guns.
I personally believe that gun rights should be a state issue. Low population states such as Wyoming have problems that are wildly different from states like California, which contains multiple metropolises. It's unreasonable to expect a one-size-fits-all solution for such a complex problem.
I can get behind storage requirements, such as mandating gun safes or locks. I fully support the idea of a firearms safety course requirement, which would prevent Joe Schmo from buying a gun and carrying it, but never learning how to safely fire it.
I'd like to close by saying that I don't believe things will change much during my lifetime. Constitutional rights rightfully have a high bar for change. I also don't believe that any attempts to ban firearms nationwide will be successful, because gun culture is too ingrained in our identity. But I do believe it's worthwhile to ask ourselves if gun ownership should be a constitutional right at the national level. And I do believe that delegating gun legislation to the state level is a reasonable compromise.
No comments:
Post a Comment