Thoughts on Guns and the 2nd Amendment

Thinking Beyond the Box

May 31

Unfortunately, there is now too much 'noise' to have a rational discussion of an important issue.

The points below aren't organized in any way shape or form. Really--they are meant to cause thinking for anyone who reads them. I'd like to think people still have the ability to critical think though the screaming/yelling about guns (and abortion) suggests otherwise, that we are addicted to the rush that comes with anger.

First, the entirety of the 2nd 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."

No one in 2022 understands 'well-regulated militia.' The term itself is 1787-1860 speak for 'slave-catching posses'. This is reinforced by the fact the Amendment was written by politicians from Maryland and Virginia. Patrick Henry states it outright--noting that a slave rebellion is a state-level issue and the Army of the United States would have no right to be involved within a state in such a situation.
In 1794, Pennsylvanians were upset that they had to pay a big task on their whiskey. This led to them taking up arms against an oppressive federal government--remember, part of the justification for guns is that they are MEANT to take on government. Except...the US Army went out to confront the rebels with the President (Washington) in command. The rebels backed down and it was agreed that there was no right to use arms against the federal government's laws.
In 1865, when debating the 13-15th Amendments, Congress debated whether a 16th was necessary--one that would repeal the 2nd Amendment. They decided not to--since there were no longer slave states and therefore, the 2nd Amendment was dead, regardless.

So from these three--you can already see that arguments about gun rights and the 2nd Amendment are a bit spurious. No one has guns to round up slaves in the 21st Century.

Before the Constitution, though, seven colonies/states had passed legislation giving citizens the right to possess firearms--whether in defense of the colony, for hunting, OR for personal safety (remembering, there were many out on the frontiers where there were wild animals and Indians)
With its traditions drawn primarily from England, the 2nd Amendment is seen there with the guarantee of firearm/weapon possession dating back to 1689, a full century before the Constitution's creation.
There is a counter-argument that possession of firearms was a necessity for men of age to be called into state militias in case of war-->invasion by Britain after the Revolution. This was because the United States did not intend to maintain a large standing army.

So now we've got three pretty good reasons for why guns are permissible. Whether the reasons still exist (British invasion) is debatable--but they did exist in 1787-1790 when the Constitution and BIll of Rights were created. They would have been fresh in the memories of the writers/thinkers involved.

'Well-regulated' --clearly this means that laws restricting firearms should exist especially when the 'well-regulated' phrase gets used also in terms of managing interstate commerce at the time. The idea that gun control laws are not permitted/unconstitutional is wholly bogus.
For the military, this means regular training and recertification and possession restrictions. I believe the US Marine Corps requires 1-2 weeks of recertification on an annual basis. Marines aren't permitted to have weapons in the barracks and personal weapons have to be registered with the base marshal--who keeps the weapon safe for the owner.

Well-regulated is a key. Most of society is well-regulated. Look at the rules put in place governing roads, teachers, health care. What if all those were removed?

The NRA actually helped craft the big gun control legislation of the 20th century in the aftermath of Kennedy's assassination (Gun Control Act of 1968) and in the 1920s with Prohibition. The NRA made sure laws passed banning weaponry equal to or beyond the standard equipment of police--so tommygun sub-machineguns were banned. It's why you aren't supposed to have .50 caliber sniper rifles, too.
The NRA position began changing in the summer of 1964--in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act's passage. At that point, the NRA (under mostly southern leadership) began agitating for looser restrictions on gun ownership. This didn't fully change though until 1977 when the NRA was radicalized intentionally.
1977 saw Harlan Carter elected as the NRA Executive Vice-President. Carter was a racist who murdered a 15-yr old Mexican boy--was found guilty and then had Texas' Appeals Court overturn the decision on a technicality. Carter took over by manipulating the NRA's rules (much like Stalin took over the Communist Party in the USSR) and remained in charge for eight years, putting others like him into positions controlling the NRA's machinery.
After 1977, the NRA blocked ALL gun control legislation--and fought against the Brady Bill (named for Reagan's press secretary who was shot in 1981) as well--forcing President Reagan to come out of 'retirement' to press for the bill's passage.

So...you can see where the NRA falls in all this. The 1980 NRA isn't the same as the 1925 NRA. The NRA itself is different again now--it no longer provides money to Democrats and it was infiltrated by Russian influence and spies over the past 20 years. The real problem with the NRA is that it radicalized politics on the issue--not coincidentally at the same time Newt Gingrich was making Congress all about 'winning at all costs' rather than cross-party collaboration.

Because there are FOID cards and guns are registered, we agree guns CAN be regulated and there are restrictions in place regarding machine guns. These restrictions could be extended to 'assault weapons'--a generic, often misused term, which really should be read as 'weapons that are not designed for hunting or target shooting'. The AR-15 used in a ton of mass shootings is derivative of the military M-16.
Guns can clearly be regulated--so why then do gun owners insist that bulletproof clothing such as Kevlar vests are part of the constitutional right to own guns? For non-first responders, is there a legitimate reason to own sets of bulletproof gear? And we're not talking expensive. You can buy a thigh-to-neck bulletproof set which guarantees maximum physical flexibility for under $500.
Why is there resistance to cooling-off/delayed possession periods? Do you really NEED to possess that gun instantly upon purchase?
There's a lot of money being made based on fear--fear of more shootings, fear that everywhere is lawless, fear that "government" is going to take guns away. You can actually look at stock histories for companies like Ruger and determine the dates of shootings or national elections based on its stock price.

More random thoughts:

No one other than police should be permitted to carry a concealed weapon.
To get your gun license, you should also have to take a practical test to show you can use it properly. In addition, firearm owners should have at LEAST a one-weekend course annually to maintain their skills.
Clips or magazines (and there are people pedantic who will ignore arguments if you use the wrong term in relation to a weapon) larger than 6 rounds should be limited to police possession only. --If it is about stopping a home intruder, six rounds should be enough...if you've done annual training and maintained proficiency.
Possession of black-powder weapons, bolt-action rifles, and shotguns (provided the barrel is properly long enough)--these should be readily permitted...and require less stringent annual training requirements than semi-automatics (figuring things like black-powder weapons are mostly used by experts/skilled people already)
The problem isn't really about gun legislation--90% of Americans want SOMETHING. The problem is polarized politics have turned the issue (like every-frickin-thing else) into all-or-nothing, I-win-you-lose, scorched earth. This is what Harlan Carter/NRA caused--aided by the Gingrich Republicans. Because it is about 'winning' rather than governing, it becomes nearly impossible to do anthing.
It took one car crash of a star to get rules for semitrucks changed to prevent cars going underneath them. It took one ALLEGED incident with Tylenol to get ALL bottles/container sealing rules changed. You can't buy fertilizer in quantity since the Oklahoma City bombing. You take shoes off because of one possible bomber in an airport The US is averaging a mass shooting per day now--and the argument is made 'It's complicated, so laws can't have a real effect.' Really...seemed to work with millions of vehicles and billions of jars/containers. (Of course, there's not a jar lobby paying 50 Senators millions of dollars...)
It IS about mental health as much as anything--but the people claiming that are also the ones who zeroed out money dedicated to mental health care. If you cut off mental health support, you can't use that as your excuse when it matters.
I believe the quickest way you'd see change take place is if a shooting took place at a school with multiple congressional children wounded or killed. I suspect then you'd see change in a matter of days at most.
I believe that if someone came along and offered to provide a free gun to every minority male in America--we would have gun control quickly. The NRA and Congressional GOP are basically controlled by people from former Confederate states.

I also don't buy people who argue laws are ineffective:

Arguing laws don't do any good because Chicago has strict laws AND leads the country in shootings is deceitful. Chicago also borders Wisconsin and Indiana with laxer rules for gun purchase. That leads to people purchasing guns elsewhere and bringing them back. That's not really Chicago's laws being the problem--that's on other states.
If laws are ineffective, why is the US the only nation suffering so many shootings? All other 1st World nations have severe ownership restrictions on guns...none of them have shootings like this.
With those things noted--laws don't solve everything. They aren't always followed--how many people still drink/drive, don't obey speed limits, bully, whatever.
Anyone suggesting guns should be banned is wrong. There is truth to the shtick 'guns don't kill people'--guns are a tool, just like a mitre saw or a bulldozer. Suggesting banishment only creates resistance to change--more anger and...more shootings.
Perfect is the enemy of the good. The thought that we should not act unless we have a perfect, permanent solution is outright wrong--and espoused mostly by those with a vested interest in maintaining the world as it is.