A Call To Review The Second Amendment

OK, here is an idea that I know will be "shot down" by at least 4.3 million people.  The idea?  It is time that the United States revisits the viability of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.  The 4.3 million people?  That is the membership of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

The NRA is a powerful foe.  One might say they are well armed with nearly unlimited money and a host of legislators that they virtually own.  The NRA is considered to be the most influential lobbying group, according to a 1999 survey of lawmakers and congressional staff persons.  Nevertheless, what is right is right, and I say it is right for a review of the Second Amendment.

In any respectable business it would be considered standard procedure to do a periodic review and evaluation of the rules, regulations and governing policies that directly affect the operation of the business.  Only in this way can a business or organization hope to remain relevant and effective in continuing to reach their goals.    For some unknown reason, however, the Second Amendment remains immortal.  There exists a very large number of people, I suspect, who would rather tear entire books out of the Bible before they would dare to consider changing even one comma within this ancient statement.  Such people simply are not thinking logically.

Let's do a little historical study.

1.  The Background To The Second Amendment.

The Constitution of the United States went into effect on March 4 1789, after being ratified by 11 of the thirteen States.  It should be noted that all thirteen eventually ratified the document by May 1790.  It wasn't long before the new law of the land was tested and altered through the adoption of the first ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.  These were collectively ratified on December 15, 1791 - - a mere thirty-three months after the Constitution itself was ratified.  Of course, included in the Bill of Rights was the Second Amendment.  The text of this Amendment is limited and to the point.  It reads:

            "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."

Two things in particular must be noted about this sentence.  First, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is directly related to the necessity of maintaining a "militia".  A militia refers to eligible citizens who are available to be called upon for military service only as needed.  We are not talking about a professional, standing army.  In fact, when the Revolutionary War came to an end Congress was very reluctant to allow for a standing army to exist.  Instead, they held to the understanding that a civilian militia, which could be called upon when needed, was the proper way to go.  General George Washington agreed.  He held that a standing army was "dangerous to the liberties of a country" and consequently  discharged nearly the entire Continental Army within four days of the Treaty of Paris which ended the War.  Only 600 men were kept in active duty to guard military supplies at West Point and elsewhere.  Thus it is understandable that civilians would need permission to keep guns if they were expected to respond to a national emergency on a moment's notice.

This connection of gun ownership and the need for a militia, as opposed to a standing army, is supported by none other than the United States Army Center of Military History.  According to www.history.army.mil this fundamental understanding was the driving force behind the Second Amendment.

            "there is no question that the architects of our government believed that the people in arms—the militia—were the final guarantors of our freedom. Any subsequent reinterpretations of that amendment must start with the fact that our leaders, fresh      from their experiences in the Revolutionary War, relied on the militia as the centerpiece of our national military establishment. The concept of the militia and the right to bear arms are inextricably joined."
                                                   -The Formative Years: 1783 - 1812

The second detail that must be noted when reading the Second Amendment is the level of technology that existed in that day.  In 1791 the high-tech, state-of-the-art weapon of the day was the single shot flintlock rifle.  In the 221 years since the Second Amendment went into effect one has to admit that technology has certainly changed the art of weaponry.  Today high powered assault rifles of military caliber are available to the general public.  Reasonable minds must ask: why!

The Colt AR-15 allegedly used by James Holmes in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado on July 20, 2012 is a good example.  The AR-15 was designed as a military weapon.  It is capable of firing up to 800 rounds per minute.  I cannot wrap my brain around that figure.  800 rounds every 60 seconds.  That equals 13 1/3 rounds per second!  Thirteen and a third!  Nope - - I don't understand what that means, exactly, other than the fact that I wouldn't stand a chance if I were on the side that looks at the end of the barrel.

Compare such a weapon with the flintlock rifle and one can readily see that this is a terribly lopsided analysis.  It is like comparing apples to sand.  They have virtually nothing in common.  In light of this I have to wonder what the founding fathers would say if they were to write the Second Amendment in 2012.

·        The civilian militia is now replaced with a professional standing armed forces, thus no one needs to be "called to arms" on a moment's notice and supply their own weapon in the service of their country.
·        Technological advancements have created a generation of super rifles that compare to the flintlock rifle in much the same way as an electric circular saw compares to a finger nail file.

I am not suggesting that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe or any of the great figures of the late 18^th Century would have advocated for a total ban on guns if they had lived in our world today.  I do think, however, they would have carefully reworded their proposed Amendment to include some severe limitations on what kind of weapons would "not be infringed."  I sincerely believe that George Washington and his buddies would look at today's assault rifles, hand grenades, modern explosives and other civilian tools of combat and label them, as Washington labeled the idea of a standing army, as being "dangerous to the liberties of a country".

2.  The Assault Weapons Ban

Interestingly, the AR-15 used in the theater shootings in Aurora would have been totally banned under the now-expired Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (aka the Assault Weapons Ban).  Not only would such a weapon have been illegal to buy or possess, it was also illegal to be manufactured under that law.  The law was adopted in 1994 with a ten year term that was renewable.  Unfortunately, the Bush Administration sold out to the NRA in 2004 and did not renew the Act.  (For the record President Bush said he supported the Assault Weapons Ban but never asked nor lobbied Congress to renew the Act.)  Since its expiration there has been no Federal restrictions on weapons of this nature.

In recent years two new bills were written to renew and strengthen the 1994 Ban.  To their disgrace the leadership in Congress has refused to bring either of these bills up for consideration, choosing instead to let them die by neglecting them.  Ironically, Congress did support several NRA-sponsored legislations that protected corrupt gun dealers and permitted illegal trafficking of firearms.

Now, I have heard the tired argument that it is useless to ban such weapons because the bad guys will still get their slimy mitts on them anyway.  You have heard it many times, I am sure:  "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."   I'm sorry, folks, but that dog just won't hunt anymore!  Using that same line of reasoning we can conclude the following.

Ø  We should legalize all narcotics and hallucinogenic drugs because the bad guys will use them anyway.

Ø  We should do away with speed limits on our highways and roads because no one obeys them.

Ø  We should legalize prostitution because we will never control it.

Ø  We should remove all restrictions, regulations, and building codes from the construction industry because the inspectors are on the take and are easily "bought off" by the contractors.

Seriously, any and every law has its violators.  That does not render the law as useless or bad, however.  It only means we need to support and improve law enforcement efforts.  Herein lies yet another quandary.  How can we support law enforcement officers when we allow them, legally, to be overmatched in terms of firepower?  I mean we tell the bad guys,  "Here, use the most powerful, the most destructive rifle or handgun made, so our local police, with their meager pistol on their hip, won't stand a chance against you!"  Where is the logic in that?  Under the present lack of restrictions that is exactly what we are saying.  We give the bad guys the advantage all because we do not want anyone to "infringe” upon my right to go hunting for a couple days out of the year; or go to the shooting range now and then on weekends.  Let me say it  as plainly and as clearly as possible:  Any society in the 21^st Century that refuses to accept a strict and responsible gun control policy will find itself enslaved to anarchy!

3.  The Moral Conflict

This is a volatile political issue.  But it is much more than that.  It is also a moral conflict.  I am writing from a Christian perspective.  I understand not everyone reading this comes from such a perspective.  Still, for me, I have to put Jesus first in my life.  I have vowed that I would do this.  It is my sincere desire and goal to model my life after his.  So I need to ask myself:  Where would Jesus weigh in on this conversation?  Hmmm.  Seems like a no-brainer to me.  He who taught us to love one another, turn the other check, not return evil for evil but return evil with good, love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, to feed our enemy if he is hungry, and not resist the one who is evil, yes all these and much more - - this same Jesus would not take a gun of any kind into his hand.  If I am his follower, his disciple (i.e. his student), his servant, then I, too, must reject them.  It is that simple.

4.  Going Forward.

Gun advocates adamantly claim the Second Amendment as their lifeline.  As they see it this Amendment to the Constitution guarantees their right to own and use their guns.  Of course, they only quote the second half of the Amendment - the part that reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  As for the "right of the people" being tied to the practical - and outdated - need for a militia, well, that remains so concealed that most people are not even aware of its existence.

Gun control advocates cite the many documented cases of gun ownership gone wrong, such as Columbine, the Nickel Mines Schoolhouse, Aurora, and of course the seemingly endless number of deaths caused by gunshot wounds each year.  In the United States 30,000 people die of gunshot wounds annually.  Of these, approximately 8,000 are the result of homicides,  while 16,000 die by suicide through the use of a gun.  Every two years more people die of gunshot wounds than the number of American lives lost in the entire Vietnam War.  These figures, they claim, beg for tighter regulations.

Both sides have fortified their positions with extensive arguments and stubborn opinions.  Neither appears willing to budge.  One solitary point that most people can agree on, regardless of which side the may support, is that with any right or privilege comes responsibility.  And the greater the right, the greater the responsibility.  When it comes right down to it guns are designed for one purpose, and one purpose only:  to kill.  There is no way to get around it.  Guns are not made for any other reason.  It follows, then, that they must bear the greatest responsibility, for life is the greatest gift.

Now, here is the bottom line in my opinion.  If the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was only given a shelf life of ten years after which it had to be reviewed and intentionally renewed, replaced or allowed to expire, then why can't the same measure of care be assigned to the Second Amendment?  Obviously the Second Amendment is outdated in terms of the need for a militia and in terms of technology.  I would argue, therefore, that it is indeed past time to review and evaluate how the issue of guns, rifles, assault weapons and para-military equipment should be addressed in the next ten years beginning with 2012.  Thus the Second Amendment as it now exists should be repealed and replaced with a new Constitutional Amendment # 28.  Whatever is decided this new Amendment (#28) should be the law of the land for ten years.  At the end of the ten years a new review and evaluation must be conducted with the following options available.

A.      The 28th Amendment (revised in 2012 and reviewed in 2022) may be reaffirmed by the end of the tenth year and may continue for another ten years.

B.      The 28^th Amendment may be revised by the end of the tenth year and may then continue in its revised form for another ten years.

C.      If neither of the above is accomplished all firearms will immediately become illegal to be held in private or corporate ownership.  That is to say, only the government will be allowed to own guns of any kind.

This last option should be enough motivation to ensure that one of the other two options will be executed.

However, on a personal note, I can always hope that Option C is the one that takes effect!

by G. D. Gehr  July 25, 2012

Comments welcome below or visit Peace-Ability on Facebook.