I suppose it's disrespectful to lose track of the spate of attacks and massacres with guns lately, but that's sort of where I am. It's a real "dialogue," too, complete with impassioned arguments on both sides of the gun issue. The latest argument is that the Sandy Hook school shooting is a hoax. Like the Holocaust is a hoax, and men walking on the moon is a hoax, and Barack Obama being born in the US is a hoax.
At this month's Commission meeting, there was a proposed Resolution urging a ban on sales of guns. It's not clear what this was about, since there are no gun sales, or sales of anything else, in BP, and the proposal had no actual meaning, but the sentiment was something about declaring a disapproval of gun violence. I guess there's no real argument there. Even the pro-gun people don't say they like gun violence. They argue that people should be allowed to have guns, and that there may be value in lots of people having lots of guns, because "good guys with guns" inhibit bad guys with guns. That's what the NRA spokesman says. It's a theory, like trickle-down economics is a theory, or Communism is a theory, and people can theorize whatever they want. They all look good on paper.
In the service of pro-gun theories, advocates invariably cite the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Either they're being disgracefully disingenuous, or they misunderstand the Amendment. They think it's about guns and gun ownership. It's not remotely about that. It's purpose and it's intention are very clearly stated, right there in the Amendment. "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." That's the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Short, and sweet. It's not at all about guns. It's about late 18th Century concepts of civil defense, especially in a frontier territory. It's about what, at such a time, was necessary to provide security of such a territory. At that time, and in that place, it was a network of local militias, manned by average citizens, who used and needed to possess their own guns. Absent that presumably critically important need in a late 18th Century frontier territory, where people ate what they hunted, and worried about what they believed were hostile and attacking natives, there is no Second Amendment.
The idea was that the King of England might want to make the colonists impotent, and in the service of so doing, might want to take away the colonists' guns, or method of protection from a predator like, let's say, the King of England. The colonists spotted that scam a mile away and said no. Not in our house. Local generals had to be able to call upon able-bodied men, and those men needed to grab up their rifles and hie it on over to the town square, or wherever the gathering was to occur. There was a battle to wage. This was frankly essential in the late 18th Century, in the colonies. We were dead without that possibility.
Today, we can proudly say we rely on a professional army. The armed forces are at least somewhat selective, and if you qualify, they will take your completely undivided attention for weeks or months, and demand an undiluted commitment for two years minimum. They provide room and board, all training, special clothing, and guns. You have your own? Leave it at home, with your favorite blue jeans and you letter sweater. It's not regulation, it's not good enough, and it's not needed.
If you google, or Bing, "archaic laws s" the engine will automatically fill in "till on the books." Yes, it's a real topic, and they already know what you want to know. You can find Federal archaic laws still on the books, and even such laws for every state. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is not listed as an archaic law still on the books, but that's what it is.
The United States does not depend on militias any more. It does not need or want any able-bodied man who is motivated to come out on a moment's notice to fight someone about something. If the average person volunteers for such an impulsive adventure, the armed forces will decline. In fact, the citizen will probably be arrested for interfering. And if someone is interested and qualifies, the country does not depend on such a person's happening to have his own gun. In fact, such a person would not be welcome, or even allowed, to provide his own weapon. Second Amendment? That was your great-great-great-great grandfather.
So misunderstanding? Maybe. Self-serving, disingenuous mischief? It's been known to happen. But in either case, people need to stop referring to the Second Amendment as if it was about guns. It's about late 18th Century colonial security, it's completely anachronistic, and it should be repealed. Subsequent Supreme Court endorsement of the Amendment is no more proof of anything than that past Courts' endorsements of the ideas that women weren't fit to vote or black people weren't whole humans was proof of anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment