One of the most
confusing, misunderstood, and misapplied pieces of the Constitution is the
Second Amendment: “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.” As an editor, I admit that this is a rather pathetic attempt at
lucid English. Which is why it has been subject to so many tortured
interpretations over the years and has in recent years been twisted by a
conservative court to mean something that two hundred years of court precedent
repudiate.
So, let’s talk
about this troublesome sentence. Most conservatives simply take the second half
out of context and make a blanket right out of it. But the first half provides
the context. The right to bear arms is guaranteed within the confines of the
need for a well-regulated militia and for the purpose of securing the freedom
of the state. So, the right to bear arms, as a constitutional matter, has
nothing to do with hunting or self-defense or, especially, enabling us to fight
against the national government if we find ourselves at odds with it.
As
constitutioncenter.org explains, however, two things have changed significantly
since the eighteenth century: the militias mentioned in the amendment have been
absorbed into the national military and the types of weapons used in military
conflict have changed drastically. No longer are they the types of weapons
individuals carry for lawful purposes such as hunting or self-defense. What
this means, in plain English, is that the Second Amendment is completely
outdated and antiquated. The circumstances under which it was created have
changed and the concerns it was written to address no longer exist. So, we’re
stuck with some obsolete verbiage that we twist in a partisan manner to suit
our own points of view. What we really need is a common-sense revision of the
Second Amendment that would enable us to pass sensible legislation that will
prevent most of the mass shootings we experience on a continual basis.
Let me make three
other points. First, an editorial I read not long ago explained that the phrase
“bear arms” is a term we use only in reference to military situations. As the
writer put it, you don’t bear arms against a rabbit. Bearing arms is, as the
Second Amendment suggests, a military matter. In other words, keeping and
bearing arms is not synonymous with just owning a gun for nonmilitary purposes.
Therefore, the Second Amendment does not strictly prohibit the government from
regulating the ownership of weapons that are not used for military service. At
the time of its writing, it prevented the government from restricting citizens
from owning “arms” that could be used in well-regulated militias at need. These
militias were essential because the National Army was small and inadequate for
a full-scale war. This is why regular citizens such as Martin Harris were
conscripted for short-term skirmishes during the War of 1812. And members of these local
militias used their own weapons.
But times have
changed dramatically. We no longer rely on local militias. We have a massive,
well-armed standing military, and so, as I suggested above, the Second Amendment,
as written, is irrelevant to our current society. We do not need citizens to
own military-style weapons so that they can fight our enemies at a moment’s
notice. Indeed, the unrestricted ownership of these killing machines is one
reason why we are seeing such carnage in our public places by a few unhinged
and deluded lunatics.
And this leads to
my second point. Most people simply assume that the rights enshrined in the
Constitution are inviolable. But rights are always attached to
responsibilities. We only enjoy rights as long as we do not abuse them. Freedom
of speech is not an unbounded right, even though it too is protected by the
Constitution. I do not, for instance, have the right to say certain things in
certain places. I also do not have the right to board a commercial airplane
without going through a thorough and invasive search of my person and
belongings. If I try to carry my little Swiss Army knife onto a plane, I will
be searched, and the knife will be seized. Why? Because of the act of one or
two demented terrorists. Therefore, such searches and seizures are no longer considered
“unreasonable” (see the Fourth Amendment).
The right to bear
arms should be subjected to similar interpretation. As a society, we have long
passed the point at which we, collectively, have proved ourselves capable of
using guns responsibly. On average, over 36,000 people are killed by guns in
America each year and another 100,000 are injured. Yes, I know, you would never
shoot anyone indiscriminately. But an increasing number of Americans do not
exhibit such perfect discretion. I maintain that we have forfeited the right to
own any sort of gun we want to own because of our irresponsible behavior. Just
as I cannot simply walk onto an airplane with my pen knife, I should not be
able to just go buy a gun. I have to obtain a driver’s license and prove that I
know how to drive before I can operate a car. At a minimum, we should require
the same level of regulation for using a gun.
Final point. As
so many have insisted in the past week, the right-wing rhetoric about mental
illness and violent video games is bunk. Other countries have equal levels of
mental illness and play violent video games. Only in America do we have semi-weekly
mass shootings. Gun homicides in America are 25 times higher than any other
high-income country. The difference? Lax gun laws. Similarly, the argument that
more guns will create more safety is more than flimsy. We already have 393
million guns in America, spread among only 326 million citizens. If this
talking point is right, we should be the safest country on earth. Obviously,
this is nonsense.
I have an
ultra-conservative neighbor who has claimed on social media that gun ownership
is a God-given right. I don’t believe her family even owns a gun. But such is
the power of tribal persuasion. We are both LDS, but I have to wonder if her
God is the same as mine.
