“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 text
of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted December 15,
1791, for those of you scoring at home.
There are perhaps no other sentence that is so divisive in U.S. law, bar
something out of Roe v. Wade. Those 27 words have been subject to millions,
if not billions of pages of legal arguments, and billions, if not trillions of
dollars to lobby over.
But just what the
hell are we arguing about? I’m no legal
expert, but I do subscribe to logic and reason—and, yes, I quite realize law
and logic don’t often intersect. So
without looking at thousands of pages of case law and judicial interpretation,
I’d like to offer some thoughts on the matter.
Those who would
defend as absolute the rights of citizens to bear arms often get back to the
intent of the Founding Fathers. Some
would say that the people have the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical
government. That has some merit. After all, we had just come from the
oppression of the English government during colonial times. But, adopted in the Bill of Rights, at the
same time as the Second Amendment, was the Fourth Amendment, which states,
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.”
In other words,
Number Four says the government can’t come in your house without something else
called “probable cause.” So, with that
protection, why would you need a weapon?
Besides, in modern times, the po-po showing up at your door with a
warrant and probable cause will probably have you out-gunned anyway.
Speaking of
modern times, let’s talk for a moment about the “arms” to which the Fathers
referred. Probably what most people had
back then was the old Brown Bess musket, which took a highly trained user 15-20
seconds to load and fire—in other words, three shots a minute. They were still 70 years away from the
Gatling Gun, and could not even fathom a modern assault rifle, which could fire
those same three rounds in under a second.
Part of the reason that people carried “arms” back then, sometimes even
required, was so that the government didn’t have
to supply them with weapons in the event of a military event which required the
activation of a civilian militia. No
such problem now. Uncle Sam has plenty
of guns.
Now, before I go
any further and be labeled a soft, wussy bleeding-heart, scared-of-guns liberal, let me
declare the following: I firmly believe in the right of a home/landowner to
defend with a firearm his or her life and property from hostile parties. I believe that right is absolute, and
non-negotiable. You know that old
saying, “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”? Well, your right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of my shit ends when you enter my house unwelcomed. I have the absolute right to repel you by
force, because shouting the text of a law barring breaking and entering
isn’t going to stop you in the process of coming for my flatscreen—or worse
yet, my kids. Now, what kind of force
should I be allowed to repel you with?
We’ll get back to that.
Let me also
declare that I firmly believe in the right of hunting as sport. Now, personally, I’d never go out and kill Bambi
for fun, but for some people, northern and southern, it’s a way of life. I’ve got no problem with that. I also have no problem eating what they kill—love
me some deer sticks. But shooting a
weapon at something that’s no threat to me doesn’t seem very sporting. Now, what kind of weapon should you be
allowed to use for hunting? We’ll get
back to that.
Finally, let me
also declare that I have no problem with sport shooting at a gun range. I’ve done it twice in my life—once, with a shotgun
shooting at clay pigeons about 15 years ago, and once with a handgun at an
indoor range with my dad last year in Arizona.
I sucked with the shottie, but was very good with the pistol, especially for a first-timer
(thank you, Halo). And I’ll do it again—I
had an absolute blast. Now, what kinds
of weapons should you be allowed to use on a gun range? We’ll get back to that.
Let us return to
the prompts for this piece—the awful events in Newtown, CT. And Aurora, CO. And Littleton. And the Giffords event in Arizona. And others.
Gun control has again, suddenly, been thrust into the national
discussion like never before. It seems
that even some staunch pro-gun supporters think that there at least needs to be
a little bit of an examination of current regulation and enforcement policies.
But is it too
soon for that examination? That’s a political hot potato in and of
itself. “Let us grieve for the children,
and then we’ll talk,” say some. That,
however just seems like it’s coming from those who are against stricter gun
laws, in hopes that after the grief goes away, so will the fervor to take
action. Lockstep liberal U.S. Sen. Dick
Durbin (D-IL) penned an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune less than 48 hours after
Sandy Hook, so, clearly, he wasn’t waiting.
And there’s plenty of turmoil at FOX News, whose weekend coverage was
ordered to NOT discuss gun control, despite FOX parent company boss Rupert
Murdoch pleading on Twitter for tighter gun controls within hours of Sandy
Hook. That’s in direct conflict with FOX
News Channel President Roger Ailes, who, according to the linked article, has a
concealed-carry permit in New York. And,
bless his heart, the only anchor at FOX who knows what the deal* is, Chris
Wallace, had on Durbin and fellow Democrat Joe Lieberman to talk gun control despite
the order not to.
So, let’s examine—and
I’m not going to get into individual states’ or cities’ laws or anything too
terribly specific. I’ll leave that to
the politicians. But I want to start
with concealed carry. It took me a long
time to understand why some people are in favor of it, until it finally
occurred to me: some people just like carrying
guns. Carrying a sidearm makes you feel
cool, it makes you feel powerful, it makes you feel like John Wayne. And there’s no tragedy, not even one like
Sandy Hook, that’s going to change the minds of people like that. They’re just going to want to carry a gun so
they can feel like a badass. “But, it’s
for my own protection!” they’ll protest.
Well, unless you’re in a forward military zone, you really don’t need to
worry very much, now, do you? I wonder
how many times people who have been mugged or something, have actually used
their concealed weapons to successfully defend themselves. Chances are, the bad guy jumps out
unexpectedly, whaps you over the head, steals your purse or your wallet and
runs off. Now, he’s got your gun, too,
after he pulls it out of your holster or if it was in your purse. Congrats.
You’ve just armed another bad guy.
Would concealed carry have stopped any of the mass shootings we’ve
talked about? Not likely. It might stop a guy sticking up a grocery
store or going into a place of business after he kills “only” one or two
people. But a lunatic with an assault
rifle, however untrained or inaccurate, will likely do much more damage than a
soccer mom with a Glock trying to stop him.
I’m against concealed carry. This
ain’t the Wild West anymore.
I asked earlier
what kind of weapon a person should be allowed to use in the defense of their
home and property. I think pretty much
any handgun is up for discussion, semi-automatics included. You want a Dirty Harry-style .44 Magnum that
will allow you to get one shot off before it knocks you on your ass, go for
it. How about a shotgun? Maybe, probably. But does one need an assault rifle? Some might argue that they have the right to
determine what is the proper amount of force needed to defend themselves and
their property, and that an assault rifle might qualify. Well, why not a bazooka, then? There has to be some kind of limit. And there should be some kind of extra
insurance for people who have weapons in the home. I got an A in Driver’s Ed and aced my road
test and took it all very seriously and was a good and responsible driver from
a young age. But my parents still had to
pay through the nose to add me as an insured driver on their vehicles. Well-trained and responsible doctors and
surgeons, who do nothing but try to help people and save lives must carry
insurance in the event of an accidental death.
Why would a person who owns a weapon, even a responsible one, not be
required to do the same? You could be
the best-trained shooter out there, and responsible as the day is long. But if someone breaks into your house while
you’re gone and steals your arsenal, now you’ve just contributed to the
problem. Sounds unfair, but that’s the
truth. Maybe home gun ownership
restrictions should be limited to population density. Out in the country, a little more lenient—in a
high-rise, a high-caliber handgun or a shotgun that can travel through walls
might not be such a good thing. Limit
on-site possession to one handgun and one shotgun or rifle, and no more than a
10-round clip in ANYTHING. If you have
emptied the clip on your Smith and Wesson in the face of a threat and haven’t
stopped it, and have to grab your Desert Eagle, a) you’re a threat to the
general public with your lack of accuracy and shouldn’t have a gun to begin
with, and b) you’re pretty much fucked anyway.
I also asked what
kind of weapons should be allowed for hunting.
Depends on what you’re hunting for, I guess. I have no problems with people owning rifles
with scopes, or rifles that can take down elk or elephants, or shotguns to blow
poor little defenseless ducks out of the air.
But let me ask you this—why not have those kinds of guns stored
elsewhere? Have them in a secured
facility, where you can go and, in advance of your hunting trip, check your
guns out and return them when you’re done?
I mean, how many hunting trips are spur of the moment, anyway?
And what kind of
guns should you be able to shoot at a gun range? Frankly, anything you want, provided you have
the proper training, of course. If you’re
ex-military and want to send some M-60 rounds downrange out of nostalgia, I
have no problem with that. Rocket
launcher? Why not, given the proper
facility. Sniper rifle? Sign me up.
But there’s no reason to have those things in your trunk coming and
going to the range, and certainly no reason to have them at home, even safely
stored, once you’re done with them. Ranges
could have those kinds of weapons available on site for rental use, that way
they never have to leave the building or grounds. Talk about a revenue stream!
I’m sure the
above four paragraphs are sacrilege to many gun owners. Yes, those kinds of concepts mean additional
restrictions on your freedoms and perhaps being a little overly regulated. But let’s get back to Number Two. Isn’t the phrase “well-regulated” mentioned
in there somewhere? Oh, right, “well-regulated”
are two of the first three words. Isn’t
it worth erring on the side of caution (i.e. well-or-overly regulated) when it
comes to the kinds of weapons that the Fathers couldn’t have even remotely envisioned?
Advocates might
also scream that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.” Fair point.
But, what are the most sacred rights listed in the Original Top
Ten? I would argue, in this country,
freedom of speech is probably number one, with freedom of religion number
two. The First Amendment prohibits “the
free exercise” of religion and the “abridging the freedom of speech.” Pretty cut and dried, I’d say. However, even those most sacred rights have
restrictions. You can’t partake of human
sacrifice as part of your religion and you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded
theater. So, if those sacred freedoms
are subject to restriction, why shouldn’t the right to bear arms also be?
Now, if you ‘ve made it this far, congratulations. I appreciate it. But I want to make one other gigantic,
critical point. All this money that we
could spend on these gun centers and putting trained law enforcement in every school in America (I’m all for it, by the way—put John Effing Rambo at the
front door of Fairview Elementary, as far as I’m concerned), I want to say
this: for every dollar we put into gun
control measures, we should equal the amount of spending on mental health
treatment and facilities in this country.
Dollar for dollar. Doing one
without the other makes no sense at all, because an untreated mentally ill person
can do plenty of damage with even the most restricted of weapons. It has to be done, otherwise, well, I might
as well go get a FOID card and apply for concealed carry when it becomes legal
in my state. As a Facebook friend posted
this morning, “If you believe gun
control is THE solution, you're being foolish. If you don't believe gun control
is PART of the solution, you're being ignorant.”
But how are we going to pay for all of this? Each school district has to pass a tax
referendum to pay for full-time guards in schools? You can’t even get some conservative teabag
asshats to consider paying a nickel more for new textbooks or computers until
the school boards cut their union-bloated liberal-agenda-ed budgets, especially
if they don’t have school-age kids. And some
liberals would spit their Starbucks at the notion of a loaded weapon in a
school building, especially if they have school-age kids. How are you going to fund new mental health
treatment centers, especially in a financially ruined state like Illinois, that’s
already closing down existing state facilities?
The “gun centers” could at least be privately run, subject to
state/federal regulation and inspection, and those places could make a hefty
profit, I would think. But the rest of
it—I’m open to suggestions, as are, I’m sure, the people we send to represent
us.
In the wake of 9/11 and some of the additional security
restrictions we faced, some folks brought up something Benjamin Franklin said
in 1775, and are again haughtily repeating: “They who can give up essential
liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Fine. If you’re
willing to put your life and the lives of your children in the vision of a man
born more than 300 years ago whose idea of rapid-fire was two shots per minute,
I offer the following statement from a modern logician like me: click here.
*In this video, fast forward to the 9:25 mark to hear Wallace's statement about the side of the story FOX News tells, and then again at the 10:45 mark when he does not endorse the rest of the network's programming.