Going Deeper Into the Gun Control Debate

As the gun control debate ramps up once again, opposing viewpoints are entrenching themselves deeper into a chasm that may never be bridged. With every tragic event that involves the use of guns, comes the same clichés from both sides of the argument.

We often hear interpretations of the second amendment thrown around in loose fashion but we can learn much from the actual text. We need to first understand that it is not a 2,000 page legal treatise such as the legislation churned out of government today. It is a fairly simple compound sentence.

“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.”

Over the years, as I regularly refer to the Declaration and Constitution, I have found the best way for me to dissect the second amendment is in reverse.  In fact, James Madison’s original wording prior to the second amendment’s 1791 ratification was also somewhat in opposite order.

The latter part of the ratified version that guarantees the “right…to keep and bear arms” is the part that has become the catch phrase for many opponents of gun control and who could argue it? It is undeniably clear and leaves little room for disagreement.

The first part however, is rarely pointed out or debated, but is more important because it tells us why we have the right. The phrase “being necessary to the security of a free State” implies a purpose. There must be a viable resistance to the threat against our secured liberty and independence as a nation. This would include tyrannical and oppressive threats from external as well as internal forces.

It may be an idea that today’s society is uncomfortable with but that does include threat of our own government. A basic knowledge of the American Revolution as well as human history leave no doubt that government has, does and will tend to strive for increasing power. At some point, that will conflict with concepts of individual liberty where ultimately the people can only maintain those freedoms by armed resistance.

The phrase “well regulated militia” is where the legal argument comes in. It has been subject to many interpretations legally and intellectually. Militia has historically been those forces made up of regular civilians as opposed to delegated forces such as the Continental Army of the revolutionary period. While some may contend that the second amendment is solely intended for the institution and regulation of a national force such as an army or national guard, then why would there be a granted right to all people to bear arms? If its intent were not also to hold government itself in check, then the framers would have no need to grant the right when they could provide arms to their own forces.  The second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which is to ensure specific individual rights and to limit the government therefore construing that it was written for anything other appears unsupported.

Many contend that the framers had no idea of the types of weaponry that would be developed. This has even fueled discussion of repeal but I would again urge us to look at the text. Based on the weapons of their era, they could have limited the right to swords, muskets, cannons, mortars, howitzers and even projectiles, but they did not and instead used the generic term “arms”. If the intent of the second amendment included the ability to fight external and internal threats, then logic dictates that there must be relative equality of firepower. What use would the right be if it served no ultimate purpose and left resistance at a clear disadvantage?

Naturally, today’s gun control advocates will ask if that means weapons like fully automatic guns, RPGs, and tanks would be conceivable by that definition. Based on the premise and wording of the second amendment, there is simply no theoretical case against these types of arms. I would also add that the use of weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, chemical and biological is moot because the effective use of these by either side is nearly impossible in a potential localized conflict between citizen forces and national armies.

While the ability to possess guns for purposes such as self-defense, hunting and sport are well and good, these are not the reasons the second amendment was created and should not be the primary arguments against gun control. It is simply to hold government(s) in check from pursuing tyrannical power. Government is ordained of God to restrain the evil that men do and the Bill of Rights as a whole is to restrain the evil that our government may do if it attains too much power. As Lord Acton said “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Attempts are being made by many to portray supporters of gun rights as lunatics who are on the cusp of retreating to underground bunkers in preparation for war with their own government. This is a ludicrous notion that is not based in any reality. What they are so vocal about however, is the slow incremental shift against these constitutional rights that have been eroding for several decades. Confiscation may not be in the immediate future but some degrees of our right to keep and bear arms have long ago been infringed by policy and regulation. Noble intentions may abound in the minds of gun control advocates, but I fear they are blindly surrendering the rights of others which could potentially lead to the demise of many other freedoms. Upholding this right is in no way radical nor is it more extreme than even the First Amendment.

Gun violence and mass murders are functions of our societal, cultural and moral breakdown. Controlling the style, tactical features, magazine capacity, ammunition availability, or any aesthetic does not go to the root cause of the intent to harm. If a person chooses to commit a crime or harm others, limiting access to guns will only shift their method to other options.
 

Each side can produce unending facts to support their case statistically but rarely do these take into account the larger ideal of the depravity of mankind. Our frequent inability to see from a larger vantage point becomes blurred by good intentions. A steadfast stand against gun ownership may feel like an attempt to protect life but becomes myopic when it ignores higher principles of freedom and liberty.    

It may be rational to discuss sub-issues like registration and background checks but this is historically a slippery slope. At what point do we draw a line in the sand? The entire gun control debate really is just a precursor to the larger discussion of how we define the role and scope of government. Are we willing to surrender more to the government? Power is not drawn from an infinite well. There is only so much until absolute power is had. When we willingly or unwillingly grant the government more power, there is an equal but opposite reduction in the power of the people.