“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.”
We spend a lot of time hiding behind those words and whatever interpretation of them is fashionable at any given moment. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted with nine others in 1791, has provided fuel to both sides of the gun control infernus, breaking down or bolstering both the positions of maintaining accessibility and limiting it.
But with each person whose life is suddenly ended by a firearm, the aura Second Amendment grows dimmer. Tens of thousands of people die in the United States each year by firearm use, whether it be deliberate or accidental. We kill each other with guns. We kill ourselves with guns. We accidentally kill each other guns. We accidentally kill ourselves with guns. Guns are easier to get, in some ways, than government-issued identification and the persistence of a 225-year-old law has a lot to do with it. While it’s important to not shy away from the accountability of the people in question — after all, guns aren’t sentient — focusing on humanly action and motivation does not tell the whole story.
The United States in 1791 was a much different place than it is in 2016. The population in 1791 was just under 4 million people (as per the 1790 U.S. Census), while the 2016 population is estimated at over 323 million people, as per the U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Clock. In 1791, the most common firearm in the United States was a musket, which required extensive loading times and wasn’t necessarily the pinnacle of accuracy and effectiveness, while 2016’s most popular guns are high-powered, semi-automatic, and designed to quickly cause as much havoc as possible in a short amount of time. In 1791, citizens of the United States has a deep distrust of standing armies, instead opting to defend themselves should the need arise, whereas in 2016, the United States fields the most expansive armed services in the modern world.
By virtue of cultural and technological development, the United States in 1791 was practically a third-world banana republic by comparison to the United States now and with how quickly technology and culture have evolved since the end of the Enlightenment Era (the early 19th Century), one prevailing question comes to mind: with this rate of progress and change, does it make sense to continue holding onto 225-year-old laws?
If the law works and has significant modern value, then sure, but it is difficult to look at the Second Amendment that way. When the Second Amendment, and really the whole of the Bill of Rights, was adopted, the nation was new and the era may have been accommodating. But since then, even the Bill of Rights has been subject to interpretation and change, along with many portions of the Constitution.
The freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment is subject to review, as there are defamation and libel laws and historically, sedition has been grounds for harassment, arrest, imprisonment, and death. In many places, people cannot assemble and petition anywhere they please, for their assemblies and protests are subject to municipal approval. They require permits. What constitutes an illegal search and seizure is subject to ever-changing legislation and just as many of us support these measures as oppose them — all in the name of national security.
There is precedent established that the rights given to the citizens of the United States by the Constitution are subjective. But what of outright appeal? That is not without precedent either.
The flaws in the Constitution, a document which many of us revere to the point of mythical status, have been pointed out and corrected before. According to Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, the upcoming Presidential election should see either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump as President, with the other holding the Vice Presidency. That procedure was changed with the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment in 1804. Slavery was enshrined in the Constitution in numerous ways, including the prohibition of amending the Constitution from abolishing the slave trade prior to the Civil War and the implementation of the Three-Fifths Compromise for purposes of congressional representation. Those errors would not be undone for nearly 100 years, taking a bloody Civil War and a series of constitutional amendments (the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth) following it.
Other fixes have been made and others are still needed, but the point remains the same — there is no sanctity when it comes to what is in the Constitution and those who have written it are not above error. The Constitution is a living document.
But even with the precedent of change in the Constitution, there are still those among us who strongly point out that “you can’t change the Second Amendment.” The Second Amendment is considered sacrosanct, with even the most speculative of proposals for change (either directly or indirectly) being called tyrannous. But if other portions of the Constitution can be subject to review and revision, what makes the Second Amendment so special? Is the right to own a firearm more important than the right to speak freely, petition, publish without censorship, or protect yourself and your property from intrusion? Why are these constitutional rights acceptable with an asterisk when the right to keep and bear arms is not?
Logically, they aren’t. The Second Amendment is no more sacred than any other wordage in the Constitution and it is with that understanding that we see the death of the Second Amendment with each mass shooting and uniform crime report.
The Second Amendment is no longer a tool to maintain liberty, it has become a threat to liberty. It is a suicide pact, as liberty is not a one-way street. If there continues to be a right to bear arms, then there also exists a right to be free of them. What better defines tyranny than having to live in a world where there exists an all-too-common existential threat that your life will be ended with a bullet and further, what is the difference between such an armed existence being carried about by the establishment of a “police state” (a common fear among the more rabid Second Amendment supporters) and one wherein that armed existence is carried out by civilian “militias?”
The Second Amendment may not have been a purveyor of tyranny in 1791, but it is in 2016.
No one knows who the “bad guy with a gun” and the “good guy with a gun” are, nor should they ever be expected to have to make such a determination in a restaurant, nightclub, or any other public accommodation.
It is important to hold to account who uses these firearms and understand why, but while motivations differ, the common narrative thread is the existence of the gun with which people are killed. Repealing the Second Amendment doesn’t inherently mean “disarming” the populace, but instead transforms gun ownership from a “right” to a “privilege.” Because of the eases to gun ownership provided by the Second Amendment, people who should not have guns get them, by virtue of the invocation of “constitutional rights.” If gun ownership is a constitutional right, then everyone has the right to own one, regardless of their race, gender, mental illness, or how many times they were investigated by the FBI without arrest, charge, or conviction. If gun ownership is a privilege, however, then accountability can be invoked and someone who has no business owning a gun, such as a mentally ill individual or someone suspected of ties to terrorism, can be denied them.
Just like driving a car is privilege, so should be gun ownership. Some would argue that these restrictions are already in place, but if they were and routinely enforced, the Second Amendment would be impotent, undermined argument.
Consider the two sides of the debate over gun ownership and control. On the one hand, the Second Amendment is used as justification for wide-spread civilian gun ownership and with the view having been the status quo, people die by the tens of thousands annually with that idea intact. On the other, the repeal of the Second Amendment will change the way guns are procured and held by civilians and could have an effect on those numbers.
So, where does the virtuous choice lay: with the view that has an established, millions-deep body count or the one seeking to change it?
h/t Rolling Stone
