“Militia existed in the colonies long before the American Revolution. With the exception of Pennsylvania, colonies required most able-bodied men to own weapons, to be willing to be called for periodic training and to defend their communities from attack primarily by Indians.” Early America relied upon the militia for defense because it did not have the money for a standing army, but, perhaps more importantly, the people in general viewed a standing army as a weapon that had, in so many societies, been used to usurp the freedom of the people. During the War of Independence it became obvious that the militia could not effectively combat professional soldiers, hence in the Constitution of 1787 Congress was given the ability to fund an army. This terrified many colonists and in order to allay their fears, the Second Amendment, which ensured them of the continued existence of a weaponized militia, was passed. The wording of the Second Amendment is as follows: “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.” Invariably gun rights activists focus upon the second half of that statement to justify no restrictions upon gun ownership (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”). But the first part of the Second Amendment makes it clear that its purpose is to ensure that the ordinary people be allowed to create an organized, well-regulated force to oppose a dictator should one arise and that gun ownership was just a means to that end not an end in itself. No one assumed that the right to have a gun to use in a military situation gave them the right to use it in any manner within civil society. There were at that time and throughout the 1800s and early 1900s innumerable restrictions upon the use of guns in civil society and this amendment did not alter those restrictions. One example of many such restrictions “As early as 1686, New Jersey enacted a law against wearing weapons because they induced ‘great Fear and Quarrels.’ Massachusetts followed in 1750. In the late 1700s, North Carolina and Virginia passed similar laws.” But the converse is also true, that is, no one assumed that the use of guns was limited only to military situations.
By the turn of the 18th century, it was realized that the militias were too inefficient and they were essentially abandoned in favor of a regular army. Additionally, at the writing of the Second Amendment, the weapons which a citizen used in ordinary life were comparable to those used in government armies. That situation changed many decades ago. In order to combat a government that possesses missiles, drones, tanks, bomber jets and nuclear weapons, one must also have such weapons and our society has made it illegal for the ordinary person to possess such weapons. Hence, we have already negated the ability of militias to mount a successful resistance against a dictatorial government. In doing so, we have removed the Second Amendment’s explicit justification for gun ownership. Some argue that is untrue. They claim that civilians armed with semi-automatics or even machine guns could take down such a government. Zelensky isn’t asking for machine guns, he is asking for multiple launch rocket systems, tanks, military aircrafts. If Ukraine had attempted to fight the Russians with only machine guns, the war would have been over in a month with Russia the victor. The advances in weaponry and the essentially non-existent status of militias has rendered the original purpose of the Second Amendment defunct.
But the Second Amendment rests upon a more basic principle, and that is, in order to preserve the freedom, safety and security of a weaker just person, a weapon is necessary to equalize that person’s power against that of a stronger, malevolent assailant. This justifies the right of a law-abiding citizen to own and use a gun for their self-defense. Being female, I know that a man does not need a gun to injure or kill me and I know that my having a gun can save my life. Anyone who says there are other means for overtaking a stronger opponent has never been in a fight for their life against such an opponent. In the 2008 D.C. v. Heller case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of this individualistic interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Many point to how this differs to many of the previous Supreme Court rulings dealing with the Second Amendment. Specifically, they cite the 1939 judgment by the Supreme Court for the United States v. Miller case. Jack Miller was indicted for violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 by transporting an unregistered 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun across state lines. Miller challenged the constitutionality of the Act saying it was a violation of the Second Amendment. The Court, in a unanimous opinion, said no, the Act wasn’t a violation and that the Second Amendment must be viewed as a means of ensuring an effective militia and that such a weapon is not a part of the normal military equipment. Although I agree that the Act was not unconstitutional, the Court’s reasoning was not only disengaged from the current world but also a dangerous interpretation of the Second Amendment. We have ceased to rely upon citizen militias over a century ago and if the criteria for the acceptance of weapons is what weapons are needed to create an effective militia to fight an external or internal enemy. we would have to allow ordinary citizens to have tanks, bomber jets, machine guns, multiple launch rocket systems, even nuclear weapons – with the exception of nuclear weapons, these are many of the things Zelensky is requesting. We can no longer view the Amendment as a means of arming a militia that can take down our government, but we can understand the principle upon which it is based – as already stated, the right of a weaker just citizen to have the means of protecting themselves against a stronger malevolent aggressor.
I am a strong supporter of the right of law-abiding citizens to have and use guns for their self-defense. But I also know that the lack of gun restrictions is inhibiting my ability to defend myself, is inhibiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, and is thus an obstacle to my freedom, safety and security, all of those things which the Second Amendment was meant to preserve. Even the 2008 Heller ruling stated that its interpretation did not mean that there should be no restrictions on gun ownership and use. Listed below are five gun restrictions that would be crucial in helping to ensure that law-abiding citizens have a greater ability to use their guns to defend themselves. Some states have already implemented these restrictions, but unless implemented at the federal level, we will never be able to curb this assault upon the law abiding.
The refusal to close the loopholes that allow private sales to occur without performing background checks thus allowing criminals, terrorists, stalkers, and the mentally disturbed to buy guns is one example of how a lack of gun restrictions is hindering the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. It is putting weapons in the hands of those who wish to do harm to the law-abiding thus increasing the number of times that a law-abiding citizen must defend themselves against an aggressor, resulting in a greater probability of harm to the law-abiding.
An argument against closing the loopholes is that it is a slippery slope that will lead to the government confiscating all guns. There are already many freedoms that are limited but do not lead to a total ban of that freedom – drinking, smoking, etc., but the most glaring restrictions of a freedom is what society imposes upon driving a car. We must be a certain age; we must have proven our competency by passing a test; we must present a license that proves that we are allowed to drive; we are not allowed to drive under the influence of narcotics or alcohol; we must adhere to the speed limits, traffic lights and signs; and in most states we must have liability insurance. Are all these restrictions just a prelude to the government confiscating our cars? Of course not. These rules ensure that we can operate our vehicles in a safe manner. I have heard many say that the government would not be interested in confiscating our cars. A car can easily be used as a lethal weapon – killing many when driven into a crowd. Recall the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing in which a car was filled with explosives and killed 168. But more importantly, if the government could restrict dissidents to a limited area, it could drop a bomb on that confined area, killing hundreds in one fell swoop. The best way to corral dissidents to a limited area is to confiscate their cars. A dictatorial government would be more interested in confiscating our cars than our guns.
One of the things that Constitutional Carry eliminates is requiring that a person receive training to prove their proficiency in the use of their guns. The removal of this requirement not only endangers the shooter but the public at large. Not knowing how to properly handle a firearm, or where or how to use the safety button, or how to recognize that some of the gun’s parts are faulty, or what is the proper ammunition for a gun, or how to recognize that the ammunition may be faulty, could easily result in the accidental discharge of the gun, harming the owner or others nearby. Not knowing how to properly aim a firearm could result in the incorrect target (probably another person) being shot. How safe would any of us feel if everyone driving a car were allowed to do so without proof of competency? Additionally, the time and discipline required for the training reduces the probability of a person buying and using a gun in a state of heightened emotion thus reducing the probability that it will be used in a violent act.
The failure of some states to prosecute gun owners whose guns are used by another in a criminal or accidental shooting because the owner did not store their gun in a secure fashion is a third example of how the absence of gun laws is hindering not enhancing the safety and security of the law-abiding public (again – the objective of the Second Amendment). This is particularly tragic when it is a child who injures or kills themselves or another child. According to Everytown for Gun Safety, from 2015 to 2020, there were at least 2,070 unintentional shootings by children, resulting in 765 deaths. These accidental shootings were the result of adults leaving a loaded, unlocked gun in a location accessible to these children. Despite the tragedy of these occurrences, organizations such as the NRA say that it is the right of a gun owner to leave their loaded, unlocked gun where anyone, even a child, will have access to it because forcing the gun owner to be concerned about how it is used, is infringing upon their use of their gun, a right guaranteed to them by the constitution. Hopefully, it is very obvious that the NRA’s stance on this matter is driven by the egotistical desire to be free from restraints and is totally indifferent to the safety and security of society, even their own children, thus totally at odds with the objective of the Second Amendment. But their stance is also totally at odds with the multitude of laws concerning the relationship of adults to children, in particular, caregivers to children. We require that a child be placed in an age-appropriate car seat when riding in a car. Failure to do so results in the driver being fined. We have safety caps on medicines to prevent children from having access to medicines that could harm them. We remove children from homes and charge the adult caregiver with negligence when that caregiver refuses to feed the child or leaves the child unattended. One of the most basic moral principles of our society is that the caregiver of a child must suppress their desires when they result in harm to the child. The tragedy of children shooting themselves and/or shooting other children because of the negligence of adults will not stop unless we hold the adult, as we do so in many other child neglect instances, responsible for the child’s actions.
The refusal to impose restrictions and bans upon semi-automatic weapons is also hindering the ability of the law-abiding to defend themselves. In almost every mass shooting a semi-automatic has been used, often it is handguns but more and more, it is rifles. The ordinary citizen does not need 17 bullets in 20 seconds to take down an intruder nor do they need such fire power to take down an animal. These are weapons of aggression not defense. Their primary targets are the law-abiding and the helpless not the criminals. I have heard it argued that the solution is for everyone to be armed and alert to danger. So when a person goes with their family out to a restaurant they must constantly be looking around to ascertain if there is a shooter nearby; they must constantly be ready to grab their weapon. This isn’t freedom. Freedom cannot exist when we are in constant fear of our lives. Even if you are willing to live in this state of constant fear, being armed with a semi-automatic will not prevent you or your family from being shot. The assailant will almost always be the one to shoot first, and in the several seconds that it takes to react and determine the location of the shooter, they could have easily already fired 10 shots, possibly hitting you and/or your family.
In the 1930s, the citizens of the US realized that the use of machine guns was so detrimental to the safety of society that the National Firearms Act (NFA) was enacted in 1934. It did not ban machine guns but it placed so many restrictions upon the ownership of fully automatic weapons (machine guns) that they essentially ceased to be used. The specific restrictions were
“The statute levied a $200 tax on each firearm defined as above, for any transfer involving the firearm. The tax was to be paid by the transferor, and to be represented by appropriate stamps to be provided by the commissioner. It was declared unlawful for anyone to sell or receive a firearm in violation of this section, and they could be fined $2,000 and imprisoned for up to five years for violating it.
While the $200 tax does not seem like much in current dollars, it represented a very large amount in 1934—in many cases the tax was more than the cost of the firearm itself. The act also required dealers of the listed firearms to register with the federal government, and also required for firearms sold before the effective date of the act, that ‘every person possessing a firearm shall register, with the collector of the district in which he resides, the number or other mark identifying such firearm, together with his name, address, place where such firearm is usually kept, and place of business or employment, and, if such person is other than a natural person, the name and home address of an executive officer thereof.’ ”
There was no clamor from society that their right to bear arms was being infringed. There was recognition of how much of a danger these weapons posed to the ordinary law-abiding citizens. Even the NRA supported this restriction.
The Firearm Owner’s Protection Act of 1986 contained a provision that banned the sale to civilians of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment (May 19, 1986), restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement.
The number of semiautomatics in the United States (includes pistols, rifles, shotguns) is in the tens of millions. We cannot eliminate them, but we can prevent their increase by doing for semi-automatics what the 1986 Act did for machine guns, ban the sale of those semi-automatics which have the same properties as those defined in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. Additionally, to prevent their increase presence, we must also ban their importation, that includes sales from out-of-country private sellers. We can reduce their present numbers by implementing a mandatory buyback from licensed dealers.
Admittedly there has been much criticism of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 by both opponents and proponents of gun control, however, despite the many loopholes, it did establish criteria that was helpful in reducing the unrestricted flow of such weapons and it did reduce the number of people killed in mass shootings. Hence, it should be used at least as a starting point in defining what semi-automatics must be regulated.
Finally, impose the restriction that a person must be at least 21 years of age to purchase a gun. Since 2018 there has been an extremely disturbing trend that the majority of the deadliest mass shootings were committed primarily by males under this age. Many will argue that 18-year-olds join the military and are given deadly weapons. True, but this is in a very rigidly controlled disciplined environment where intense responsibilities are imposed upon them. Another argument against this age limit is that at the time of the American Revolution it was many an 18-year-old who took up a gun and fought for our freedom. True, but this was in an era when 14-year-olds were forced to assume the responsibilities of adults. By the time they were 18 years old, they were far more mature than the 18-year-olds of modern society. A third argument against this is that I have been comparing gun restrictions to those imposed upon driving a car, yet we allow 16-year-olds to drive unaccompanied. The difference is that a car’s primary purpose is transportation and at this age there already exists a great need for a teenager to transport themselves to and from school and work and social events. Its use as a weapon is secondary. A gun has one and only one purpose – the destruction of people, animals, and objects. The exception to limiting gun use for anyone under 21 years of age is for hunting animals. However, the guns used must be purchased by someone who is at least 21 and in the event that the underage person to whom the gun is given uses it in a malevolent fashion, the purchaser of that gun will bear significant responsibility for the actions of the underage person.
Hopefully, it is obvious that the argument by gun control opponents that any restrictions upon gun ownership or use endangers our ability to overcome a dictatorial government is absurd. As already stated, even if every adult and child had a machine gun, they would be no match for an army of tanks, bombers, drones, missiles. Hopefully, it is obvious that gun control opponents are totally unconcerned with the ability of the law-abiding to use a gun to defend themselves against a malevolent aggressor. If it is not obvious, let me recount another example, one among many, that displays their total indifference to the safety and security of their fellow citizens. In 1996, in response to the 1995 bombing of an Oklahoma City federal office building, a counterterrorism bill was introduced in Congress. Some of the provisions contained in that bill were: 1) Measures to make it easier to deport illegal aliens charged with terrorism 2) Enhanced government powers to suppress fund-raising by foreign terrorist groups 3) Implementation of studies of armor-piercing ammunition and explosives 4) Measures to make it easier for the government to prosecute those who provide weapons that are used in crimes. The NRA opposed all of these and was successful in having them removed from the bill, hence their actions increased the probability of terrorist attacks. And they claim they are the enemies of a despotic government!!
If gun control opponents are not motivated by fear of a dictatorial government or concern for the ability of law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves, what does motivate them? It is the orgiastic high from the sense of power which they feel when they see or imagine the look of intimidation in the faces of others as they approach them with a gun in hand. It is the orgiastic high in feeling that they are free to do whatever they want, and that society cannot impose restrictions upon them even when those restrictions would prevent egregious and unjust harm to others. In other words, their motivations differ little from those of the shooters in these mass shootings. Do we really want our gun policies controlled by people who are driven by such motivations!
Rescuing America's Democracy From Its Collapsing Morality 