Whenever discussions of, or arguments about, gun control come up -- and there are almost always arguments -- there is a clarion call about the second amendment to the United States Constitution. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again ... Talk about beating a dead horse! You would think that the second amendment is far more important than all other amendments, or even the Constitution itself.
Of course, the second amendment is not the most important piece of the Constitution, but do those who tout its importance the loudest really have the spirit of the amendment, or even just the wording, right? Let us look at the second amendment as it is written in the Constitution:
"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."
What right of the people shall not be infringed? That seems to be a key question. To keep and bear arms seems the prevalent, and loudest, answer. In fact, that seems to be the only (or the only "really significant") answer based on all the heightened rhetoric. Let us assume that the founders of this country simply wanted the keeping and bearing of arms to be a right of the people. If you follow the amendment to its full interpretation, then, why would the founders put in that phrase "A well regulated Militia"? According to gun enthusiasts, groups like the National Rifle Association, and (although unspoken publicly, I would suspect) many politicians, any group of individuals have the right to arm themselves to the teeth and call themselves a militia. Well ... you have the freedom to do and say that, of course, but that is not really a right. Certainly, the founders would not be so concerned with such minutia as to include that in the Constitution, and then to call it a right.
Probably the most ignored part of the amendment, even more so than "A well regulated Militia", is the middle portion: "being necessary to the security of a free State". Again, this has been co-opted by the pro-weapons proliferation and death-for-profit interests as meaning that the government of a free state would not be coming after its citizens' guns. Correct, it would not. That, I believe, is part of what the founders meant by this phrase's inclusion, but did they mean nothing more than the government cannot come after citizens' guns, period? That, at best, is a resounding maybe.
To presume that this country's founders, facing uncertainty, death, and the possibility of failure on such a grand scale, would be bogged down in the quagmire of minutia and, essentially, over-regulation is an insult to them.
Consider what those who came here faced: feudal systems, collection of taxes to support the king without a say in what the king does, absence of freedom to speak out against the king (with the possibility of imprisonment or death), an As the king goes, so goes the kingdom modality, and a Rights? What rights? condition, to name just a few.
Eventually, a large number of those persons decide enough is enough and they are going to do something about it. They decide to head out to a new land and begin a new nation of their making. After doing so, in order to codify their intent, they create a document that will declare themselves free from tyranny; the document would be the Declaration of Independence. They know their actions will anger the monarchy and all hell will certainly break loose and they will likely have to aggressively defend themselves. All hell does break loose.and they do defend themselves.
As result of the bloodshed, another document of codification is drafted. This document, going beyond declaring independence, states all of those things, in great detail, they are escaping and how this new nation will be run differently, and for the better. That document is the United States Constitution.
Now, to bring this back to the question of gun control, do you think the founders of this new nation based the wording of the second amendment because the worst that could have happened was that British troops would take away their guns?
Since all of this upheaval took place in the eighteenth century, let us look at England at that time. Specifically, let us look at hunting. How did they hunt for food in eighteenth century England? I do not mean on foot, on horseback, individually, or in groups. What did they use to kill their food? Prior to the eighteenth century, pack of hounds were commonplace. Shotguns came into their own and became more prevalent in hunting. Therefore, aside from knowing a gun call kill a human being just like it can kill an animal, using shotguns to hunt for food was neither a law nor a right; it was considered normal ... nothing more than a means of survival.
When those individuals came here to start a new nation, did they suddenly stop using guns for hunting? Of course not. Having a gun, even more so for those who lived in more remote areas, was not deemed unusual. Why, then, would the drafters of the Constitution feel a need to legislate that? Why would they even consider, even for a moment, to make what was a normal means of survival a legal issue?
Owning a gun was not so much non-negotiable, as the pro-gun movement would extol, but rather more superfluous than anything else, and that, along with everything mentioned above, is the context in which the second amendment was drafted. The second amendment was drafted to call for a defensive force ("well regulated Militia") with the idea that, should a dire need arise, even the citizenry have the right to weapons to help defend this country.
Thus, the second amendment is not about personal freedom to own guns, period. It is not about the empowerment of this nation's citizens to not solely (and thus narrowly) defend themselves, but to defend this country against any and all threats to a free state.
The second amendment of the Constitution of the United States is not about the individual at once, but rather about the nation at large.
Terry
No comments:
Post a Comment