Nuts on Both Sides

Guns and US - part 4

Something is clearly wrong in this country. Too many people are dying from gunshot wounds.

In this series of essays, I am exploring some facets of the issue.

* * * * *

Today we focus on the Second Amendment. It states: “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.”

Note that there are essentially two clauses, and the second is dependent upon the first. It might be reworded: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.”

That is not how it has been interpreted (stupidly) by the current Supreme Court. The court pretends that the reason for people bearing arms has nothing to do with a well-regulated militia. Rather, the court pretends that the right to bear arms is inherent in personhood – or, as some gun advocates claim, given by God. (Feel free to find that in your King James.)

Even so, the court admits that the Second Amendment is not absolute. It has limitations. The right to bear arms can be “infringed,” only carefully.

One reason the founders adopted this amendment was fear that a standing army could threaten national security. In most coup attempts, then as today, the army is the instigator or main supporter of the coup. A “well-regulated militia” was offered as an alternative to a standing army.

However, the War of 1812 and other threats to national security convinced national leaders of the need for a standing army that could be relied upon in emergencies. Our armed forces have been involved in almost constant warfare ever since. Still, we won’t be rethinking that choice, for some very good reasons.

Today’s militia is the National Guard. It functions as support and reserve for active duty armed forces. No other so-called “militia” is well regulated, no matter what they claim.

Some militias are, in fact, not regulated at all and are threats to national security. They stand ready to support a coup attempt by any leader they might endorse. Outside of bogus references to “antifa,” you do not hear of any left-wing militias. They are all right-wing outfits. Do you honestly think any of them exist to support your rights?

It may be that reasonable gun control restrictions could stand judicial review, even under the current Supreme Court. (Illinois is now testing that.)

Some gun proponents think that all restrictions are unreasonable. They are nuts. Some gun opponents speak of repealing the Second Amendment or banning all guns or “buying back” all guns. They also are nuts.

National regulation is necessary – first, to avoid a bewildering patchwork quilt of state laws; second, because the current Supreme Court insists that the Second Amendment is sacred writ.

Given the current political climate, passage of any sort of “reasonable” national gun law seems most unlikely. Nuts on both sides will not budge, no matter how many children are slaughtered in our schools.

Slaughter of the innocents is the collateral damage we as a society accept for worshipping the Second Amendment.

As I said earlier, we live in a sick society.

Next and last: Some modest proposals.