"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.”
Let me make clear right up front that this is not an argument for gun control. Or against it. It’s simply an attempt to frame the discussion in the proper light. Because there really isn’t much discussion going on. Any conversation on the topic is quickly cut short by someone shouting: Second Amendment! My rights! What about my rights? Here’s what I think about that:
What’s in the Constitution is not Sacrosanct.
The Constitution is a great document and has been an amazing blueprint for running an incredibly complex and diverse country, one that’s grown beyond the expectations anyone could have had at the time. Well done Founders!
But they didn’t get everything right. Slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person – but only in so much as their white, male owners were allowed to vote for representation. Senators were chosen by legislatures, not popular election. And that doesn’t even mention all the things that are NOT in the original Constitution (or first ten amendments). Big things like women and black people aren’t property; they should be able to vote. Smaller things, like term limits for presidents and Congress shouldn’t be allowed to give themselves raises. The point is that simply being in the Constitution, or not being in there, does not equate to being right. An idea has to stand on its own merits.
You can certainly argue that our country has too many rules and regulations. You’d be very hard-pressed to argue that the Constitution alone provides enough detail for our society to function. You can argue that our Founders were very wise men who set up a framework based on very important concepts and ideas. But they were a bunch of white, male slave-owners who lived in a very different time and wrote a document centered on their own needs and desires without much regard for what truly amounted to the majority of people in the country. Human knowledge, human understanding, and I believe human society has expanded and grown and is getting better. I want the world to change because that’s the only way it can improve.
Every Right is subject to Infringement
Every right mentioned in the constitution has limits placed on it. Free speech doesn’t let you say anything you want: you can’t yell fire in the crowded theater. Your religious freedom doesn't allow human sacrifices. One person’s liberty often infringes on another’s and there has to be rules to balance the needs of each individual against the needs of society. Even our very right to exist can be taken from us by the state – and I kind of expect a fair number of those who support gun ownership as a personal right also support the death penalty as an appropriate punishment.
The whole basis of society is to find common rules that protect individual rights while still protecting us from each other. If you want to claim a right as something you need, you have to be able to explain and defend why it’s in society’s interest to allow you that right when it impacts other people. It’s certainly possible to do that, but once again the fact that a right is spelled out in the constitution, even if it foolishly says it cannot be infringed, MUST be infringed. Otherwise we can have no rules that say parents can’t leave loaded guns lying around the house, we can’t prevent known violent criminals or those with serious mental illness from possessing guns. I believe all rational people understand the need for some rules. Let’s discuss what those rules should be instead of pretending that any additional rules are completely unacceptable on the grounds that there should be no rules at all.
We’ve already Fucked Over the Second Amendment
While you can argue over the interpretation of the Second Amendment, it’s actually pretty clear what the main idea behind it was. Look at it again:
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.
First, it’s about the militia. It’s not talking about private citizens in their everyday lives. And the purpose of the amendment is stated right there: to secure a free state. That means to both help repel aggressions from other countries (something the Founders expected any moment) as well as to protect the people against the over-reach of their own government (something the Founders had just experienced). You can say there are other aspects to the amendment, and other benefits and motives can rightly be ascribed to it, but it’s main focus is military.
So let’s look at it on that front. It doesn’t mention guns. It says Arms. Arms are the weapon of war. At the time that meant muskets. Today, if our militia has any hope of repelling even the weakest attempt at invasions, it’s going to take a lot more than guns (the farcical plot of Red Dawn notwithstanding). Weapons today include rocket launchers, missile-carrying jet fighters, even nuclear bombs. Yet no one has any problem with laws that infringe upon the right of the people to bear such arms. It’s obviously crazy to let people own tanks and walk around carrying plastique explosives. Times have changed and we all seem fine with it.
And for those who still argue that guns are necessary to protect ourselves from an overbearing state, who think that allowing a bunch of right-wing extremists to own semi-automatic rifles (hell, let them have full auto with 30-clip rounds) would actually keep them safe from an assault by the government – seriously? Have you any idea what our military is capable of? Even our standard law enforcement has the weaponry to easily overrun a few citizens with guns. If our government ordered our armed forces to take out the state of Nebraska (I’m just assuming here that lots of Nebraskans own guns – correct me if I’m wrong), it would take half a day to do it. Our gun ownership is not what keeps our democracy functioning, and there are many, many nations in the world that prove this is so.
Which brings me back to the fact that we have already taken a great big dump on the literal words of the Second Amendment, and for the most part evolved beyond the primary spirit of the law as well. Arguing that we can’t touch it, that it’s the holy shrine of the Bill of Rights, is not just putting the toothpaste back in the tube, it’s trying to unbrush out teeth and regurgitate the swallowed particles of sorbitol and fluoride.
So come on, let’s have a discussion of gun rights, gun ownership, personal liberty, and what is best for our society in this day and age. Bring your historical arguments. Appeal to the sentiment of the Founders. But don’t for a second try to claim that the Second Amendment is the end all be all of the story. It’s a footnote at this point. It’s time for real thought and real debate. We deserve it.
