The 2nd Amendment

 

This is a most unfortunate amendment to the US Constitution.  This single sentence in the US Constitution has contributed to the deaths of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people in this country. If it weren't for the wording in this single sentence that makes up The 2nd Amendment there would likely be millions fewer firearms and thousands fewer deaths by firearms every year.  But honestly, what were they thinking?

In the US in 2020 there were 25,500 murders - over 19,000 of those murders (80%) involved a firearm.
Deaths by firearm has doubled since 2010.
More than 53 people die each day from the violent use of a firearm.
In the US In 2020 - children - those under the age of 19 - death by firearm has replaced death by auto accident as the leading cause of death.

It seems pretty obvious that - when it comes to the availability and use of firearms -  Americans as a whole have not become more reasonable nor more responsible, but have become far less so.

~ ~ ~

As a result of these statistics, along with the near daily march of yet another mass shooting across our news-feed, shouldn't a reasonable person be at least willing to take a closer look at the 2nd amendment, and possibly give it a rethink?

Let's do that:

From what I have observed, most of the radical supporters of The 2nd Amendment either don't know or don't care what it says.  They just parrot "It's my 2nd amendment right", or, "The 2nd amendment gives me the right . . . "

Those who do actually attempt to quote The 2nd Amendment, quote ONLY PART of the last half of the amendment - ". . . the right . . .to keep and bear Arms . . ."  That is seemingly  the entirety of what they believe it says.  Again, they either don't know or don't care what the rest of it says.  I suspect that the vast majority of them have never read The 2nd Amendment, and if they did right now, they would not recognize it until they were half way in.

~ ~ ~

"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."

~ ~ ~

"A well regulated Militia. . . ."

What is a "Militia" - it is a military force that is raised from the civilian population to be used Instead of, or a supplement to, a "standing" army.

In the case of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, a Militia was preferred OVER a "Standing Army".  What is a "Standing Army"? - A standing army is a permanent, often professional army.  It is composed of full-time soldiers who may be either career soldiers or conscripts.

The framers of the 2nd Amendment felt that, based on past experience, there were to many downsides to the historically unpopular use of a standing army.

The "well regulated" part indicates that Militia members were to be trained to a degree, making them capable of being a Militia.

" . . . being necessary to the security of a free State . . ."

This is the purpose of the "well regulated Militia" - according to Alexander Hamilton - to keep The United States, FREE - free from "insurrection" from within (especially from slave revolts) and free from "invasion" from without (they had just experienced an invasion from the British Army).

Who are "the people" that this "right" is granted to?  I submit that this is probably the easiest part to figure out - it is granted to able-bodied white males who were considered old enough (16) to be capable of learning how to use a firearm and follow instructions.  While it's likely that women were not specifically excluded from this right, it is clear that the founding fathers never intended The 2nd Amendment to apply to black Americans of any age or sex - slave or free.  The "people" who are granted this "right to bear arms" are those men (white), and ONLY those men (white) who will be a part of the state militia.  That is why the words ". . . A well regulated Militia . . ." are the first words in the 2nd Amendment.  That is what the 2nd Amendment is about.  It is not about an individual's right to own and posses a gun.  It is about a states right to maintain a well trained and armed citizenry who, at a moments notice, could be called up to defend the state against insurrection or invasion.

But is WHAT the 2nd Amendment says any more important than WHY it says what it says?  Shouldn't we know both?  Shouldn't we know the intention of the authors of the 2nd Amendment????

HELL YES!

According to Jim Ludes 2019 article from the Pell Center:

"In 1789, a militia was not a self-appointed force of citizens in camo running around in the woods by themselves. Militias would be raised by each state government, their loyalty and devotion to the new American republic was assured by the fact that they would be defending their families, their neighbors, and their homes. Because they might someday have to operate as a combined force, the militias were to be “well-regulated”—meaning trained to standards set by the federal government.
There is a myth—or misconception—that the right to bear arms was a guarantee of individual gun ownership. The Supreme Court didn’t adopt that interpretation until a 5-4 opinion in 2008—219 years after the adoption of the Constitution!"

Read Jeffrey P. Campbell's Master's Thesis on the intent of the 2nd Amendment framers.  It makes it perfectly clear that the intent was strictly to enable the states to establish "well regulated" militias.  "Self defense" was never a consideration, never part of the "original intent", and was never even part of the discussion between the framers as they were hammering out the text of The 2nd Amendment.  No one even hinted that this was a good idea so that individual citizens could protect themselves from criminals wanting to do them or their property harm.  Self defense was never discussed - period.

For another scholarly detailed examination, read Carl T. Bogus's 1998 U. C. Davis Law Review article The Hidden History of the  Second Amendment .  This is a must read if you have any desire to understand The 2nd Amendment and what led to it's wording and inclusion in the US Constitution.  

There was a growing fear amongst the Southern States that slavery was endangered.  It was clear that Northern States (and some southerners) wanted slavery ended and the slaves emancipated, while many southerners favored deporting slaves.  Why deport - simply out of fear of how an abused black population might react once free and no longer under the complete control of whites.

Our founding fathers - the white men - who framed the US Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, got it wrong, and the "future" citizens of the USA, including little children sitting in their school classroom learning US History, have been paying for it with their lives.

From 1966 to 2019, 77% of mass shooters obtained the firearms that they used, through legal purchases.  

Does this mean that if it was more difficult to legally purchase a firearm, that mass shooters would just purchase them illegally?  I don't know.  But I believe it is worth a try.  The system we have now clearly, obviously, IS NOT WORKING.  Why not make it more difficult to legally purchase a firearm?  An employer wants references along with your application.  Why doesn't a person wanting to purchase a firearm need to provide some references?

Is America thoughtful enough, reasonable enough, to make a comparatively small sacrifice over gun control reforms in order to possibly minimize the sacrifice that so many children have, and will have to make - with their blood - so that Americans can own what amounts to a portable weapon of war, designed and manufactured for the sole purpose of killing as efficiently as possible ???  I suggest that the answer is a resounding NO - America is not thoughtful enough, reasonable enough. 

New Zealand was . . .

Australia was . . .

Norway was . . . 

Untied Kingdom was . . .

The United States of America is not.

The single-issue republican voter seems unfazed by the shooting death of dozens of children in a matter of minutes. It has become ubiquitous. And the unflinching reaction of the average ultra-conservative gun owner is mirrored by the people that they will vote into office, the people that are always offering "thoughts and prayers" and are NEVER ready to discuss a possible modification to the system we have in place now. It is the proverbial broken record. The responses from the likes of Sen. Ted Cruise and Rep Louie Gohmert are as predictable as the sound following a pulled trigger. When they speak after the next school shooting, they will be parroting the beliefs and attitudes of those who vote them into office, over, and over, and over again.

~ ~ ~ 

I did a thought experiment some years ago, brought on after another string of mass shootings. I asked myself how many people (in my little county) have I personally or professionally encountered or interacted with - that had died from gun violence? After some contemplation, the count was seven:

2 - A neighbor murdered (shot) his ex-wife then shot himself.

3 - A husband and wife and their young daughter, whom I had a very brief professional relationship with, all three murdered (shot).

1 - A young man who helped install a dishwasher in my house - murdered (shot) by the ex-husband of the female friend that he was visiting.

1 - A young woman (I had a professional relationship with her and her parents) was a reporter for a local TV station - along with her cameraman on live TV, murdered (shot) by a former co-worker.

I have personally known seven people who died by gun violence in my small county of 50,000 people, a county that I have lived in since the early 90's.

~ ~ ~

Sorry, I have no profound closing remarks.

bob
r.u.reasonable@gmail.com

Note:  Lest I be accused of hypocrisy - full disclosure - I am a gun owner.  I have more than one gun.  

According to Pew Research, 66% of American gun owners have more than one gun.  29% have more than 5 guns.  I have more than 5 guns, but not much more.  

None of the guns in my "small" collection holds more than 6 rounds, three hold 5 rounds and a particular rifle holds exactly 1 round and it takes several minutes to carefully reload after firing.

I am licensed to conceal-carry a handgun, which I do, most of the time that I leave my home.  And like the vast majority of gun owners in the US, I have never, in all my years of gun ownership, I have NEVER had to reach for or pull my gun in a self defense situation.  I am sure some have had to, but I never have - most never have.  Only about 1% of people who were victims of a crime actually used a gun in self defense.