Self-inspired by my thoughts on what God isn't, (yes, I do know how self-absorbed that sounds), this is a post on what the Second Amendment does NOT state.
Oh, I know what it SAYS all right. I have it memorized; after a certain number of debates, that's advisable. (You can believe me, or you can imagine that I dialed up www.usconstitution.gov/billofrights/amendment2.htm and cut-and-pasted it, but don't do that, because I probably just made that web page up.)
Amendment No. 2 says, "A well regulated militia, being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Alternately, in the version ratified by the states, "A well regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Much brainpower has been dedicated to what meaning the commas, or absence of commas, bring to the text. I used to obsess on this topic, but have nothing new to bring to the discussion. Scholars argue that the commas either limit or enhance the amount of individual liberty regarding gun ownership. Naturally, whichever way these brilliant scholars interpret the commas reflects their own bias, or the case they are trying to advance at the time. Curiously, some propose this neat little theory: the commas are inconsequential, that the framers had commarhea, if you will. (Groan.)
No, commas are boring. (Disclaimer: I love this book, which is the second result on Google auto-complete if you enter "Eats.") Instead, I want to waste my time tonight doing some more of that negative thinking. I'm putting up a list of erroneous conclusions that can be drawn from the Bill of Rights, Chapter Two. Then at the end, I'll offer my own interpretation of the text, because I can't help myself.
The Second Amendment does NOT say:
"Return your guns to the government."
"You can have as many semi-automatic submachineguns as you want."
"A waiting period for handguns must be in place."
"Federal legislation supersede local laws."
"Militias are awesome! Go put one together! And government oversight is optional."
"Heavily regulated ownership of firearms make our country safer."
"An armed society is a polite society."
"Because the government owns stealth bombers and nuclear submarines, our collective security is assured, and we should all get rid of our hunting rifles."
"City handgun bans are unconstitutional."
"Concealed weapons in bars, that sounds like a good idea."
"It is illegal to hunt deer with an AK-47."
"Anyone can keep and bear a Glock."
That was fun.
What DOES it say, though? I'm roughly 10 percent as smart as the dumbest guy in the room at the time they were concocting the Bill of Rights. Therefore, I'm qualified to paraphrase. (The commonly accepted threshold for bloggers is 0 percent.)
The best I can come up with is:
"Threats to our collective security abound, not only on the national level, but also on the borders of our states, and from even within our own population. It is evident that a tyrannical government might still arise from our experiment in representative democracy, as we are embarking on a seldom-traveled political journey while living on a continent populated with both friends and enemies. For these reasons, it is vital to our survival that reasonably regulated armies of citizens be allowed to form. It follows, logically, that citizens may own firearms."
Discuss.
Agreed.
ReplyDeleteWhat the...? Did I just...? Auntie Em! Auntie Em! There's no place like home! There's no place like home!
I find gun control and the 2nd amendment to be like the vast majority of rights, topics of law, and fairly important privileges: 1) If we could trust governments and other individuals, we wouldn't have to talk about it, 2) Because we can't trust governments and other individuals, we have to protect our rights and fairly important privileges, and 3) Somehow it also makes sense to prevent people (and governments) that most obviously can't be trusted from posing more of a threat on the rest of us than they should. Oh, yeah. And 4) Accidents happen. Yeehaw.
Seems to me that we have very sensible laws surrounding the operation of motor vehicles on public roadways. Last I checked, your average compact car makes for a pretty potent deadly weapon in the wrong hands and people who can't be trusted to handle one aren't allowed to drive. On the other hand, people who've demonstrated minimal competency and have not shown themselves to be unfit to drive are allowed. So, as far as I can tell, something about the fact that you operate a car from the inside and a gun from the outside makes us act like there's a huge difference between guns and cars - but I really don't see it.
Aaron Sorking writes a West Wing episode where Toby discovers the "smudge" in the Bill of Rights concering the second amendment. Fiction, I know. But still great. (7th season, the penultimate episode, I think).
ReplyDeleteMason - except for the fact that guns are designed to blow your head off, and cars are designed to move people from location to location (and drag race), yeah, there's no difference between the two.
ReplyDeleteFeel better now that we're arguing again?
Fonda - I'd forgotten about that. When Cori buys me the whole series for my birthday, I'll take my sweet time getting to it. Until then, let's keep killing each other all across the country way faster than other rich nations, that'll solve most our problems, yeah.
John you forgot Cars are also used for picking up chicks. Therefore, when you get married and have kids, you buy a van (or a hyundai elantra in my case), defeating that purpose.
ReplyDelete