11 of 30 - Right to Bear Arms
Jun. 15th, 2016 10:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aggienaut"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, as you may recognize, is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, popularly believed to grant everyone an individual right to guns.
Now, I don't have a particular agenda as regards guns, at least not on the traditional perception of one being either entirely against them or entirely for them. I'm not a gun nut, but I have friends who are quite in to their gun collections, and am aware that many other people are as well and would be very upset, indeed live in relative terror at the prospect, of their guns being taken away. And on the other hand, gun violence obviously causes a lot of unfortunate events, to put it mildly. And then there's the whole issue of what is or is not a constitutional right. And it is this latter point I'd like to address. What DOES the Constitution actually say?
Most people on both sides of the debate have seemed to completely lose sight of one minor detail about their "right to bear arms" -- the Constitution does NOT guarantee individuals the right to bear arms.
The 2nd Amendment's express purpose is to guarantee a "well regulated militia." So now let's step back from everything else and ask this: does the current firearm policy in any stretch of the imagination resemble a "well regulated militia?"
I will go so far to propose that it does not.
Some have put forward that the state national guards fit the requirement of a "well regulated militia." And that may be possible, but it's also true that the founding father's were intensely suspicious of government and clearly intended the amendment to allow citizens to fight the government, their OWN government, if they so desired.
Which brings up an interesting nuance. Far from banning military grade "assault weapons," such an interpretation would expressly allow them.
Anyway, clearly there are a lot of fans of guns who adamentally desire to keep personal weapons that are not under the control of the state, and would be, so to speak, up in arms, if they didn't have an option.
So what if people COULD form "militias" in the form of gun clubs. But the members of any such militia are collectively responsible for the gun related behavior of any individual member. It's then in all member's of the club's interest to make sure no wingnuts are allowed to join their club. And if you're a wingnut you probably won't be allowed to join any gun club. And of course as is currently the case, no felons, mentally unstable, or otherwise dangerous individuals could have firearms even if they could join a club.
I know, I know, the idea of "armed militias" sounds scary but consider that presently they already exist with no motivation to self regulate.
And the "right" to bear arms doesn't necessarily need to apply only to militias, remember that which is not forbidden is allowed, so I'd propose there'd of course be allowances for persons of known levels of civic responsibility, honorably discharged veterans, police officers and the like, to own personal firearms -- and this category would happily include all my friends who are gun nuts.
So that's my compromise interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Either way, to return to my initial point, the current situation in no way resembles a "well regulated militia," and clearly needs to be drastically reformed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-06-15 03:49 pm (UTC)Still, it's an idea worth working with.
no subject
Date: 2016-06-16 12:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-06-15 04:08 pm (UTC)I also think that people's lives are more important than a hobby, so I guess I'm pretty far into the anti gun camp. Guns scare the shit out of me.
no subject
Date: 2016-06-15 04:46 pm (UTC)http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2012/12/15/our-moloch
http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/its-honor-continue-being-valued-over-countless-hum-53094
no subject
Date: 2016-06-15 06:18 pm (UTC)But it's not an easy thing. I've always felt there's way more that needs to be fixed than gun regulations. In the US having guns is considered an inherent right but access to health care (especially mental health care) isn't. It's expensive to seek help and is underfunded so whenever you do manage to get help it's not usually very good or helpful. In the US there's a lot of sexism that hurts women but also hurts men...it causes them to bottle up their emotions and teaches them that acting our violently is an appropriate response. In the US we've normalized violence. It's fucking everywhere and I know this because I'm extremely sensitive to it. There are WAY too many movies and TV shows that I can't watch because they're so graphic and violent. It normalizes the act of totally dehumanizing others and acting violently against them for your own personal agenda. And these are just a few things that feed into all the gun violence problems we have here that nobody really seems to want to talk about or fix. And it's tricky because we want an easy fix in regards to gun regulations but it's just not that simple. We can regulate guns all we want but we'll still have the same problems until we can dive deeper into what's really happening and try to fix the root causes of gun violence.
I've actually never looked closely at what the Constitution says about the 2nd amendment (as I imagine most people haven't) and have never heard this argument about it before. It's been an interesting twist to think about and makes sense for that time. But the problem with the Constitution is that it was written for a government that existed in an entirely different time with different issues and an entirely different society. So the 2nd amendment makes total sense in the context of the time. They were forming their own militia and forming their own government in a time when the government wasn't trusted. We're not at that place right now. And I think people forget the context in which all of this was written and how vastly different it is than today. And people want to make it fit into the modern world so it gets changed as society perceives it. And not many people bother to look back at what the texts actually say.
no subject
Date: 2016-06-16 12:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-06-15 06:19 pm (UTC)1. It's not always easy to know who will and will not use guns appropriately. There are so many reasons people hurt others and it's not always easy to tell that someone is planning something. Some people may not even be planning it...they just snap. So unfortunately it wouldn't be easy for those in the gun club to keep those out who could do damage. (And honestly this argument can be used for gun reform too...I can see people still getting through the system and legally buying a gun and then misusing it...so it's not an easy thing at all)
2. Who is to say those in the gun club would have wholesome motives for their guns? What happens if the gun club is made up mostly of pro-lifers who think it's appropriate to use their guns to shoot up Planned Parenthoods? And clubs are full of politics and hierarchies that would inevitably lead to different branches of the gun club with possible rivalries and grudges. What if they use their guns against each other because one part of the group thinks it's a good idea to shoot up Planned Parenthoods and the other finds that disgusting?
3. It doesn't (and honestly I don't think simple gun reform would either) fix the problem of guns in gangs/on the streets. Too many people die from street violence and those who have these guns on the street could care less about gun clubs or gun reform. They use them as symbols of power and protection. Even if regulations and gun clubs could solve the problem of mass shootings it still doesn't fix the problem of street and gang violence.
Bah! Sorry this comment got super long lol (lj made me cut it into two) I also didn't mean to come across as picking the idea apart. I think this whole entry was super intriguing to read and hasn't been anything I've ever heard before which is refreshing. I just have a lot of opinions on gun violence in the US and your entry made me think out loud a bit.
no subject
Date: 2016-06-16 12:41 pm (UTC)1. There have been proposals to make gun sellers liable for crimes committed with those guns but that's obviously unworkable because the gun-seller is NOT going to know everyone he does business with very well and that's just an absurd imposition; BUT, this I think is kind of a more workable manner of the same thing. You don't have to convince every random gun seller you're not crazy, but you have to convince the members of a gun club. Because all the members are potentially liable for you, it will be in their interest to really take the time to sit down and talk with you , and I'd imagine clubs will be themed around things like hunting or collecting so the members can really probably easily sort out if you're actually serious about that activity or not.
4. This doesn't fit exactly any one of your points but I want to emphasize that the gun clubs themselves will be "well regulated" of course in a number of ways, and probably have to carry a heavy load of liability insurance.
2. There probably _would_ be some unwholesome seeming gun clubs, but this whole thing is to be regulated by objective standards. So if the "Pro Life Gun Club" wants to form and follows all the objective qualifications than they can form, HOWEVER, the moment any person with a gun makes a threat against someone else's safety, they lose their "right" to have a gun, and if the club on a whole espouses violent rhetoric, it will be very immediately shut down. If they want to do all their violent planning in secret, well, under the current situation they could do that to so that's not a argument against this system. But let's say there's 20 people in this club (I'm don't think clubs of numbers much smaller than that should be allowed to exist), and they're planning something violent, and one of them gets cold feet -- as a member of the club he will be held liable for the actions of the others if they go through with it, so he's gotta now talk them out of it or go tell someone to stop them.
If people within a club decide they want to shoot eachother, well, all the above and usual rules apply to that.
3. I think this really would make it harder for gang members to get guns. What are they going to do, form a gang gun club? That would just make it even EASIER to arrest them all the moment one commits a crime. It won't be legal to sell guns to people who aren't members of a gun club. They will really and truly only be able to get guns illegally.
no subject
Date: 2016-06-16 01:46 am (UTC)Great post, thanks!
no subject
Date: 2016-06-16 12:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-06-16 12:59 pm (UTC)I read in the paper this am that 'Drumpf' is meeting with the NRA - they are backing him. And the conversation will be about 'terrorists' having access to guns. Never a dull moment in this country of ours. Something surely has to be done about better gun laws overall.
The NRA seems so concerned about any gun laws changing that this should get pretty interesting.
Please don't think for a second I am for 'Drumpf'.
Thanks again for your post on this!
no subject
Date: 2016-06-23 07:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-06-24 11:16 pm (UTC)