Second Thoughts

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.

The founders of our country included the right to bear arms in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. That 18th century decision has serious, often tragic, and too-frequently horrific repercussions in the world we live in today. It is past time to consider the text, meaning, limitations, and implications of an amendment that, for better and worse, still has its hold on us today.

It was included as a bulwark against tyranny, as protection against internal and external powers that threatened the fledgling Republic. The founders were suspicious of standing armies and, having just won a war with them, felt that the individual states' citizen militias were indeed necessary for the security of a free country.

Beyond authorizing state militias, the amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and and bear arms shall not be infringed". Keep. This implies ownership and that the 2nd amendment confers rights upon individuals as well.

On first consideration, the 2nd amendment appears to be quite broad in scope, and specifies a sincere restriction on governmental gun control. On further inspection, we can see the limitations.

We relied on armed militias at the nation's founding. But things have changed. The stated premise of the amendment is no longer relevant or true. Armed, citizen militias are not necessary to the security of the state. More often they are a threat to it. The US has a substantial and very well equipped standing army that is perfectly capable of protecting the nation and projecting power abroad. The old state militias have been folded into a National Guard that is funded, armed, deployed by, and effectively under the control of the federal government. It is no longer the case that a well regulated militia is necessary to have a free country.

Even if the premise is no longer valid, the amendment can still have force. It's text still holds meaning. It confers a right but, like all Constitutional rights, it is subject to limitation.

There is already a consensus agreement that citizens do not have the right to own any weapons they may desire. Explosives, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and all manner of military equipment, are banned from private ownership. It is illegal to own these things because we recognize that there are obvious, practical limitations to the 2nd amendment. Allowing everyone to access the means of mass murder and wanton destruction is a threat to a free society. It is not required by our constitution. There is ample precedent for restricting weaponry simply because of its lethality and destructive capacity.

There is also precedent for controlling not only what weapons are available, but who may have them. Guns are designed for the purpose of killing other people. We can lawfully attempt to keep them out of the hands of dangerous individuals. Felons, fugitives, and convicted domestic abusers are currently prohibited from owning guns. This list could be expanded. People are rightfully aghast that someone being investigated for terrorism ties can still lawfully purchase a semi-automatic rifle.

The Bill of Rights was intended to place limitations on the powers of the federal government. Typically, its restrictions apply to the states as well. Freedom of speech is protected against actions by both state and federal legislatures. The 2nd amendment is the exception. And the exception is written into the amendment itself. The militias were state entities. The amendment plainly states that they are to be well regulated. It's a straightforward reading of the text to see that it does place limitations on federal regulation of firearms. It is also clear that the amendment confers not only the right, but the obligation of the states to regulate access to weapons. Mental gymnastics are required to read the phrase "well regulated" and conclude that it means unregulated. The 2nd amendment gives states the authority to regulate firearms as they see fit.

The second amendment prohibits the federal government from fully disarming the states and their citizens. It does not prohibit a national ban on military weapons that can be used to commit murder on a massive scale. It does not stop us from enacting stronger background checks and keeping deadly arms out of the hands dangerous and unstable people. It does not mean that the states can not regulate guns to any extent that they desire, including creating a total ban. We can create gun-free states.

Honoring our constitution does not require inaction after each horrific slaughter. It is not true that there is nothing we can do. That is our choice. We can make a different one.

Stopping Gun Violence in America

The goal ending gun violence in general, and horrific mass shootings in particular, is one that is shared by most all Americans.

It is also true that a great many Americans own weapons and keep and use them responsibly. We have a strong traditions of gun ownership and guns are tightly intertwined with our history, our politics, our entertainment, our mythology, and in many cases, our sense of self.

This combination had made ending gun violence very difficult in America. But I wonder if we can find some common ground and move towards a solution. Ideally we should all seek a system that preserve our traditions and allows for continued gun ownership while keeping these uniquely lethal capabilities out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths.

My proposal goes like this:

• Existing regulation regarding the purchase of firearms is left unchanged. No additional restrictions are added on who can purchase guns or what people can do with the weapons they already own.
  
  
• A federal law would make it illegal to sell any firearm ammunition to individuals for private use.
  
  
• During phase 1, there would be no new restrictions on ammunition people already own or purchase before the law goes into effect.
  
  
• Licensed gun ranges, gun clubs, and similar operations would be authorized to purchase and sell ammunition in most any type and volume. 
• All of this ammunition would have to remain on and be used on the premises.
• These gun clubs would be given a very wide latitude in terms of the their scope, size, and the variety of tactical, recreational, and sport opportunities they offer.
  
  
• Whenever a valid hunting license is purchased, the individual would also be able to purchase a small quantity of ammunition appropriate the weapons they will be hunting with and the game being hunted.
  
  

• After 10 years, phase 2 would go into effect. At this point private ownership of firearm ammunition would no longer be legal. 
• The penalty for owning ammunition would be minor - more like a speeding ticket than a jail sentence.
  
  

The goal with this proposal would be to immediately limit access to lethal capacity to new gun purchasers. People could keep their guns and get new ones. But, over time, the intent is to move the capacity to use them as lethal weapons out of peoples homes, out of the hands of criminals, and into more controlled settings. This would preserve the use of guns for hunting, sport, and recreation. It would also bring about a fundamental shift in the unrestricted availability of deadly force and end much of the tragedy that comes with it.

The Way of the Gun

When my son Isaac (age 12) wrote his Christmas gift wish-list this year it consisted of:

• Nerf gun. 
• Nerf gun. 
• Nerf gun. 
• Money. 

This year we had also had a 14-year-old French cousin joining us for Christmas. So, when my mother called in search of gift suggestions, I had the bright idea: Nerf guns for everyone!  I figured a big, plastic firearm was the quintessential American gift and envisioned much merriment with all of us boys - I included myself in this plan - blasting away at one another.

In the aftermath the Sandy Hook shootings, the thought of pointing guns, even bright plastic ones, at children filled me with nausea and dread. I had second thoughts. But my always-agreeable mother had already gone ahead with my plan. So it came to be that a substantial Nerf arsenal awaited us under the Christmas tree.

Christmas morning came. The Nerf guns were a big hit. Of course. As soon as they were opened and unboxed, with piles of sparkly presents still sitting unopened under the tree, we ran outside to shoot blue darts at one another in the fresh snow.

The Nerf guns was hardly the only firearm-themed Christmas gift received. Our favorite toys, computer games, board games, card games, television shows, movies, and books all feature guns and lots of them. The depiction, recreation, and immersion in imaginary gun violence is one of my, and now my son's, major preoccupations. Blowing holes in a wide variety of zombies, mercenaries, aliens, and assorted "bad guys" is a near-daily staple and a welcome source of temporary escape from the basic banalities of modern life.

For all my indulgence in firearm fantasies I've pretty much kept my distance from the real thing. I've rarely held, and never fired an actual weapon. I don't own a gun and don't ever intend to. But I can see the appeal. I understand the powerful  pull, and the mythic aspects of guns. In spite of that, and in some ways because of it, I wouldn't want an actual weapon in my home or in my life.

For a great many Americans their relationship with guns is much less distant. Around 45 millions households in the US own a total estimated around 270 million firearms. The vast majority of these weapons are kept perfectly safely and securely. They are used for sport, hunting, collected, and used responsibly for fun or recreation.

But these are weapons. They are designed to do damage. With weaponry that powerful, and access this easy, it takes only a tiny percentage of dangerous individuals to cause horrific damage. Every year there are thousands of firearm deaths in the US. Thousands of murders. Thousands of suicides by gun. Every few months we receive news of another shocking mass shooting. It is too often, too regular, to easy for a psychotic individual to go on a shooting spree in an office, a movie theater, or a school. Each time we are appalled, we grieve, we shrug, and we go on.

Here in the US, the guns have always been here. And the tragedies have come with them.

I wonder if we aren't ready for a change.

There are multitudes of guns owners in the US. They are also citizens, parents, colleagues, businesses owners and community members . The horrors of gun violence reach the guns owners and those without alike. We should be unified in our desire to prevent gun violence. We should share the objectives of reducing violent crime, and stopping the terrible killing sprees, while preserving lawful, safe, responsible, and even for-fun firearm use.

In my next post I'll propose a plan to do that.