This article represents my attempt to approach the gun issue as a logical discussion rather than an irrational and political one. The underlying power of politics, unfortunately, is the money donated to those running for office. My personal opinion is that the founding fathers would have been against the financial dynamics—on both sides– of today’s politics. Things are so divided now that NRA and gun manufacturers’ contributions only go to Republicans. The link below shows which politicians received contributions from the NRA. (https://elections.bradyunited.org/take-action/nra-donations-116th-congress-senators)
That doesn’t mean that many pro-gun arguments don’t have constitutional merit. It only shows how radically divided we are and how hard it is to rise above cliches, really listen to others and employ logic.
Did you know that shootings are the leading cause of children’s death in the USA? According to The New England Journal of Medicine “From 2019 to 2020, the relative increase in the rate of firearm-related deaths of all types (suicide, homicide, unintentional, and undetermined) among children and adolescents was 29.5% — more than twice as high as the relative increase in the general population 2020” (2022). In 2020, 4,368 children died from gunshots while 4,036 died from auto wrecks. It is sad to report that 4,368 U.S. children up to age 19 who were killed by guns in 2020 were homicide victims (AXIOS, 2022).
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761
https://www.axios.com/2022/05/26/gun-deaths-children-america
The results of the United States’ position on gun control and the consequences can be viewed through international comparisons.
https://www.healthdata.org/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488024/gun-ownership-violence-shootings-us
Obviously, the the United States holds the lead among advanced nations in injuries and deaths caused by gun violence. A possible remedy could be the elimination of all weapons that could be used in mass killings. While semiautomatic weapons are used for many legitimate purposes including home defense and hunting, they are not deemed fully necessary. Outlawing these types of weapons could eliminate people utilizing them for mass killings in public places like at schools or shopping malls. The most popular weapon used recently for mass murderers is a semi-automatic rifle with the look of the AR15 military weapon. The question remains; will restricting sales of these types of weapons still allow the use of the weapons for hunting and home defense? Yes. If my dad was alive and found out that I was using a banana clip to try to bring down a dove for dinner, he would have insisted I change my last name! (My mom, of course, would still have loved me.)
Some people may want to keep military weapons for the purpose of fighting our government’s military. My ramblings fall outside such thinking. I would suggest that if you intend to take on our military, you need to look for something much more potent that a fast-shooting rifle. Possibly a fighter jet armed with nuclear rockets?
I recommend that we promote more efficient weapons than AR15’s for protection of the home. Two characteristics most wanted are 1) Knock down power and 2) Relative safety for others. Here are some alternative suggestions:
1. Get some bear spray…I promise you will not run into anything scarier than a charging bear—and this spray will stop the big furry animal, human or anything in its tracks. As powerful as it is, it won’t kill folks.
2. Get a two shell shotgun filled with bird shot. It has a short range, so you won’t kill your neighbor; it shoots a cluster of pellets, so you’re less likely to miss, and if you hit someone they are going down. It’s not good for mass killers because of its limited range. If limited to 2-3 shell capacity, it makes it hard to kill a lot of children…or old guys like me.
3. Pepper Spray is known to have great negative effects on the eyes and respiratory system. The great thing about this type of spray is that it doesn’t take any serious training. Just point and shoot! Your kids in the next room or the next door neighbor won’t be killed or injured.
So now we reach the question of constitutionality. Does our constitution require the open sale and possession of all arms? If so, are there some arms that should not be included? The weapons that were being addressed in the composition of the 2nd amendment grew from the use of sticks, then spears and swords, and muskets. Arguably, the arms available today have evolved into state of the art weaponry. . Atomic bombs, machine guns, landmines, bazookas, rockets, canons, armed drones, poisonous gas, semiautomatic and automatic arms with banana clips…the list goes on and on. In essence, the definition of “arms” has evolved into “Star Wars.” Should ALL “arms” be available to the ordinary guy without supervision?
The Second 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”, was ratified on December 15, 1791. There was a need for this amendment at the time due to its timing right before the second war of 1812 fought between America and Britain on American soil. It was also during a time when the active state militias were experiencing problems with French troops and the indigenous peoples in many of the new states. Both were seen as great potential conflicts to the US militia at the time.
It is unusual for a Constitutional amendment to be accompanied with an explanation of its purpose. This particular amendment was much debated before its passage. It was important for the authors to explain the reason and essence for this 2nd amendment. During the original debates in constructing this amendment, James Madison argued how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, “a standing army…would be opposed (by) a militia.” Time and technology have long since negated argument that our national army can be held in check by state militia.
During the time of signing this amendment, every state was trying to become accustomed to being a part of the union and ramping up for their responsibilities of defending the new coalition. These independent entities, now joined together, bore great responsibility of raising armies against common foes (our national military was at its infancy). This was done by forming and sustaining militias that could be called into action as the major asset of our national military.
Throughout this crazy time of trying to create a constitution, many issues were left open. One issue was the right for each state to have the power to have and store arms used by its militia. Not long after the passing of the constitution, the issue arose. This effort was not only necessary for the inevitable war of 1812, but for the ongoing armed confrontations with the French and indigenous people whose land and way of life had been invaded. Each state kept a storehouse of arms for its militia. Without militias from each state, the United States had no chance of surviving in the wars fought during this time of US history.
The issue of the right to bear arms arose from a question of the legality of keeping muskets in storage to be used by a state militia. The question postulated was whether each individual state had that authority to determine an individual’s right to bear arms.
We can see this in the Early Supreme Court opinions that appeared to follow the general logic of the founders:
- United States v Miller (Supreme Court 1939) Ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia (1).
It wasn’t until 2008 in Columbia v. Heller that the Supreme Court stated that the second amendment protected the individuals right to bear arms:
- District of Columbia v. Heller (US Supreme Court 2008) held (5–4, a close decision with 4 of the justices not concurring.) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home (2).
Regardless of how one interprets this particular amendment, the controversial Second Amendment did pass and has been recognized by our Supreme Court. In my opinion, for anyone to interpret the 2nd amendment as a right for anyone to obtain any weapon available to the military, this simply would not fly well with the founders of the US Republic. If my understanding is correct, then the true question isn’t whether an American Citizen has a right to bear arms but rather which arms and where. My guess is that the founding fathers would not think much of taking a bazooka to the shopping mall. So, the issue is not about the right to bear arms but the modern day application to this right.
It is critical that laws adjust with the accelerated changes of our time. For instance, the law in many jurisdictions until recently was that a property owner owned his property to the center of the earth and to the heavens. Now that would mean every airline that flew over at 30,000 feet would be trespassing. We can see here that the approach to the laws of land ownership changed out of necessity. Reasonable laws require reasonable updates. I feel the same is true of the legal treatment of weapons. It might definitely need another revision when the technology we see in “Star Ship” becomes a reality.
(1) https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-v-Miller (2)https://www.britannica.com/event/District-of-Columbia-v-Heller
The second amendment is the only one I remember having a prequel. The authors explained that the right was given because of the need for a militia. Can’t you see the fallacy in applying the right to bear arms to every Joe that has enough money to buy a weapon which in turn makes him capable of killing massive amounts of folks? Can you imagine telling the men that passed the amendment that there would be semi-automatic weapons that crazy guys could buy—without a sanity test—with banana clips?
I have no doubt that many of us will feel safer if there is a national effort to disarm the crazies and take away the profit incentive of the companies making a major fortune in the US selling mass killing weapons.
It would be wise of the United States to study the policies of other countries similar to the US who experience substantially less violent killings. We could easily figure out what is working and adopt it here in the United States.
Recently I heard my governor in Texas say that the problem of mass killing is one of mental illness, not guns. Well governor, I agree that we need to seriously address mental illness in Texas. I am upset by the massive cuts in the Texas budget for mental health treatment you have championed over the past couple of years. But, my point is that those in advanced countries that have only a small fraction of mass killings compared to the United States could not possibly have a saner population than folks here in the United States.
Please don’t misunderstand the intent of my writing. I am not arguing for the termination of the 2nd amendment. I am arguing that we walk away from this political polarization and save this Constitutional freedom by rejecting cliches and embracing common sense. It is time for all of us to listen carefully to our neighbors’ logic and, combined, reach a better solution.
References
https://elections.bradyunited.org/take-action/nra-donations-116th-congress-senators
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761
https://www.axios.com/2022/05/26/gun-deaths-children-america
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488024/gun-ownership-violence-shootings-us
https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-v-Miller
https://www.britannica.com/event/District-of-Columbia-v-Heller
Recent Comments