The Second Amendment is not only one of the most misunderstood amendments of the US Constitution, but is also (somewhat ironically) one of the most important. The fundamental freedoms Americans hold dear can only be protected by an armed populace. A government without that supreme check on its power is a government unrestrained, and a people without the ability to defend themselves are mere subjects. In this article, I will outline both the key arguments about the Second Amendment and some of the basic solutions for solving the very real problem of gun violence.
First, it is important to clarify the purpose of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. In order to pick apart its meaning, it might be useful to state the Amendment itself: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the safety and security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (US Constitution, 1787). On its most elementary level, the idea was to protect against the potential tyranny of government. The ability to protect oneself and “check” the government, moreover, entails having weaponry at parity with what the government offers.
That often engenders the response that one would have to own drones and fighter jets for true parity with the government’s military power. That response, however, is completely false, as can be seen in any of the US’s major wars. Ever since Korea in the 1950s, none of our enemies have had comparable weaponry to the US Armed Forces; when looking to Afghanistan in particular, we can see that the nation’s militias managed to drag on the fight for over a decade with nothing but the most basic of modern weaponry.
Additionally, as with any law, one has to read it understanding its limits. For example, the Eighth Amendment, stipulating that there can be no excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment, does not mean one can not be put in prison or that bail of $100 is too high. Even though the Amendment does not explain the particulars, it can be reasonably assumed that prison or bail of over $100 are not unconstitutional. As with weaponry, the right to bear arms is not all-encompassing for every conceivable weapon. What weapons are included will be further outlined later.
Parity requires basic modern weaponry, but we must also entertain who will be holding those weapons - and what they will be - by examining the terms “militia” and “arms.” “Militia” is often mischaracterized as meaning a national-guard-like organization under the purview of the government (state or federal). Yet this is misguided; in context of the late 1700s or in a textualist interpretation of the Constitution, the term “militia” encompassed any and all able-bodied male citizens who were not employed directly by the state. (Since citizenship is no longer limited by gender, “militia” would now include any able-bodied citizens.) Second, some assume that the term “arms” actually does not include modern weaponry. However, because Second Amendment was meant to keep the government in check, and thus for the people’s parity with the government, “arms” would include modern weaponry. The Armalite AR-15 rifle is a popular example. In addition, the founding fathers were not naive; they would have certainly understood that, eventually, technology would change. The Puckle Gun, for example, was an early repeating (semi-automatic) firearm, and many experimental examples followed suit, like the Austrian Girandoni rifle, a myriad of revolvers, and other new technologies of the 18th and 19th century.
Since I have established the basis of the Second Amendment, I must address a few points of modern debate to explicate the conservative argument for gun rights. Following the shooting in Parkland, Florida, many states and the federal government have taken up, or have considered taking up, legislation raising the purchasing age for firearms to 21. This would be patently unconstitutional. Raising the purchasing age would establish a precedent whereby the federal government could raise the age for any of the rights presented in the Constitution. It is a Pandora’s box that should never be opened. Constitutional rights are restricted for minors (under the age of 18) for that very reason: they are minors, under the protection of their parents or guardians. To restrict the rights of adults is an affront to the very foundation of the Constitution. The definition of an adult would have to be changed for such an act to be constitutional, which would entail raising the voting age, the age for joining the military, among others.
Another common argument (which completely disregards the Second Amendment) is that the federal government could enact a mandatory buyback like the Australians did in 1996. Despite there being over 1 million firearms in Australia in 1996, the government only managed to obtain 650,000 (Barrett, 2017). Even despite the 650,000 firearms taken, by 2016, there were more guns in Australia than before the buyback (Geary, 2016). In addition, according to a comprehensive study by Gary Kleck from Florida State University, the homicide rate changed only negligibly, and even at that, mass shootings were quite uncommon before the buyback. The cluster of shootings that caused the buyback encompassed only about a decade of Australia’s history and are a statistical anomaly (Kleck, 2018). Disregarding Australia’s abysmal failure just by the numbers, when we consider the fact that there are well over 300 million guns in the United States, we must realize that it would be logistically impossible to implement a similar program in America (Barrett, 2017).
Another point on that topic: by removing weapons from law-abiding citizens, weapons will only be in the hands of criminals, who by definition do not follow the law. The massacre in the Bataclan Theatre in Paris, France in 2015 could very well have been prevented, or at least mitigated, had some of the theatre-goers been carrying weapons (What happened at the Bataclan?, 2015). It is worth noting the fact that France, and Europe in general, have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the Western world. Police can not appear on the scene the second something horrible happens, so the people on the scene at the time of the shooting have the best chance at stopping it. This tragic event occurred in a country, and continent, with some of the strictest gun laws in the world, which should speak to the lack of efficacy of strict gun policy. By contrast, when in 2017 a terrorist began shooting at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, he was stopped by an armed resident who owned an AR-15-like weapon (Montgomery, 2017). This event exemplifies the necessity of being able to own weapons with a high stopping power (ability to incapacitate), particularly in time-sensitive situations. The same holds true for areas where police are miles away and cannot reach the area in a timely manner. In regions around the Southern border or in the countryside, being able to have a high-capacity, high stopping power rifle can mean the difference between life and death. We cannot always count on the presence of police, and the citizen in danger often has the best chance at saving his or her own life.
Lastly, it is important to recognize that while mass shootings have become ever more common in recent years, guns have become less available and at the same time have not changed in any significant manner since the early-mid 1900s. Weapons like the M1 Garand or other semi-automatic weapons of the like existed for over 40 years until the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 banned automatic weapons produced after that date (S.49, 1986). This simple fact further diminishes the idea that the availability and type of weapons is the issue, rather than sociopathy or other mental complications.
Of course, there must be some overall regulation on the purchase and ownership of firearms, which very few people dispute. Anyone with a criminal history, serious mental health issues, etc. should be withheld from owning a firearm. NICS (the National Instant Criminal Background Check System) should forcibly include criminal information from all states. Gun violence restraining orders, like that proposed by David French of the National Review, should be implemented. These would allow someone of close relation with a gun owner or prospective gun owner to file for a restraining order preventing that person’s purchase and ownership of a gun, but the person in question would be able to challenge the order in court and must receive a verdict in a timely manner (French, 2018). Serious mental health issues must also be addressed, which may include the resuscitation of many mental institutions in America to provide better care for those suffering from mental illness. Simple, obvious solutions like these must be the future of gun reform, not the so-often-proposed restrictive, unconstitutional solutions.
Sources:
Barrett, J. (2017, October 3). Should The U.S. Adopt Australia's Gun Laws?
Here's Why That Would Never Work. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from The Daily
Wire website: https://www.dailywire.com/news/21884/
Should-us-adopt-australias-gun-laws-heres-why-james-barrett
French, D. (2018, February 21). The Gun Violence Restraining Order Responding
to a Libertarian Critique. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from National Review
website: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/
the-gun-violence-restraining-order-responding-to-a-libertarian-critique/
Geary, B. G. (2016, April 27). Australians now own MORE guns than they did
before the 1996 Port Arthur massacre - as it's revealed we imported a
record number of firearms last year. Retrieved June 22, 2018, from Daily
Mail website: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3562714/
Australians-guns-did-1996-Port-Arthur-massacre-revealed-country-imported-record-n
umber-firearms-year.html
The Constitution of the United States. (1787, September 17). Retrieved April 26,
2018, from National Constitution Center website:
https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf
Kleck, G. (2018, January 12). Did Australia’s Ban on Semiauto Firearms Really Reduce Violence? A Critique of the Chapman et al. (2016) Study. Retrieved June 22, 2018, from SSRN website: https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=015017002073027124115002088083074018005089018032067023088097077093020106119007087024029042031023054007048069087022066068121086031021028008031095101127082067107093127008020005116116122124125029099097010029026080106100016015030123010126106119025028022097&EXT=pdf
Montgomery, D., Mele, C., & Fernandez, M. (2017, November 5). [Gunman Kills at
Least 26 in Attack on Rural Texas Church]. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from
The New York Times website: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/us/
Church-shooting-texas.html
S. 49 (99th): Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. (1986, March 19). Retrieved April
21, 2018, from govtrack website: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/99/
s49/text
What happened at the Bataclan? (2015, December 9). Retrieved April 25, 2018,
from BBC website: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34827497