In #Utah you are more likely to be killed by a cop than by a criminal. Which kinda disproves Wayne LaPierre's "good guys with guns" argument
— The Daily Edge (@TheDailyEdge) November 24, 2014
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.
I’m tired of listening to gun nuts caterwauling about their “gun rights,” which to their way of thinking, means anything, any caliber, anywhere. They’ll trot up the (provably untrue) “more guns = more safety” argument and top it off with “an armed society is a safe society”…all while offering nothing to back up either contention. Meanwhile, there have been 91 school shootings since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and at least one Conservative patriot has seriously put forward the argument that “your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.”
In an era when more then 10,000 Americans die each and every year from gun violence, it seems monstrous to argue that “gun rights” are all-encompassing and supercede the right of children to live. Surely we’re better than merely accepting and enforcing a bloody status quo? Surely we can come together and craft a common-sense plan to minimize gun deaths to whatever degree possible?
Sadly, it really does appear that gun nuts are of a mind that ANY compromise, ANY action defined as “gun control”, would in effect curtail their rights, which They. Will. Not. Stand. For. I suppose this is what happens when a class of people value their lethal weaponry more than life itself.
As depressing as that thought is, there actually is an idea that makes sense and would clarify the frustratingly vague language of the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, it will never fly, because the gun nuts will firmly oppose any sensible idea that might “infringe” on their “God-given rights,” even tangentially. Even with that sad reality in mind, this idea- adding five words to the 2nd Amendment- is worth consideration:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.” (emphasis mine)
“When serving in the militia.” What those five letters do is tie together the two disparate parts of the 2nd Amendment. When originally written, the 2nd Amendment was promulgated in a very different era. A citizen militia was necessary for the protection of society from all manner of external threats. The original Americans couldn’t call 911 and expect the police to arrive quickly, so the ability to protect oneself and one’s family was paramount.
Fast forward 200+ years, and the 2nd Amendment’s language is no longer relevant to our modern world. We no longer rely on a citizen militia, and a trained and formalized law enforcement component means that self-defense is not an issue with the immediacy the 2nd Amendment was written for. America has evolved into a country which has divided the 2nd Amendment into two parts- the “well-regulated militia” part, and the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” part. The first part is no longer relevant to the world we live in…and the second has been hijacked by gun nuts who’ve used it as justification for clinging to their guns as if they love them more than life itself…and that’s not an altogether inaccurate statement.
I can’t imagine that the Founding Fathers had ANY inkling of the potential lethality of weapons that would be available to Americans more than 200 years down the road. Nor could they have anticipated that a citizen militia would no longer be a necessary part of every day life. Beyond that, I can’t imagine they intended for Americans to have the unalloyed right to own whatever type and caliber of firepower, nor to carry it wherever they may choose, regardless of the risk to public safety.
It’s time to accept that we don’t live in 1781 and adapt the 2nd Amendment to the world as it is today.
While I concede that a well-regulated militia might be necessary to the security of a free state, that role is now ably served by our military, professionally trained and highly disciplined, drawn from the ranks of our families and friends, from whom we have nothing to fear. We no longer need Minutemen. The British have not surrounded Concord. This is not “Independence Day” and we’re not under alien attack. I cannot imagine any circumstance in which our government would urge us to arm ourselves in defense of our country. Our nation has outgrown its need for an armed citizenry. The disadvantages of widespread gun ownership far outweigh any perceived advantage. Ask the parents of Noah Pozner. Ask African-American residents of Ferguson, Missouri. Ask what America’s love affair with guns has meant to them.
Just don’t ask gun nuts. They don’t care, and they may not until they have to bury some of their own…and maybe not even then.
In the meantime, innocent Americans will continue to die…because to those who worship guns above all else their lives are little more than abstract concepts.
WE DESERVE BETTER.
