Guest Post by Morbo
Last week, I wrote about deluded NRA members who actually argue that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm the citizenry in case it becomes necessary to overthrow the U.S. government.
Some who responded to that post noted that a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., recently struck down that city’s gun-control law, adopting a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment that seems to be at odds with Supreme Court precedent.
I agree that this ruling is troublesome and dangerous. I hope it is overturned on appeal. But that won’t be enough. The only way we can prevent dumb opinions like this from resurfacing is to repeal the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment has long been a subject of controversy because of its vague wording. It states, “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.”
The debate centers around whether this amendment confers an unfettered right on individuals to own firearms or whether that right exists only within the context of a state-run militia. I side with the latter view, but I also believe that the entire debate is antiquated and esoteric. We would be better off simply ditching the Second Amendment. It is a relic from days gone by, and it is time for it to go.
As I mentioned last week, in the post-Revolutionary period, a system of state-run militias looked like a viable possibility. Rather than a large standing army, the nation would rely on a corps of citizen-soldiers who would spring into action when needed. Naturally, they would need to bring their own arms.
It didn’t work out. The militia was failure during the War of 1812, and it soon became obvious that the United States would need to follow the example of European nations and form a large standing army if it wanted to secure its place as a world power.
The citizen-soldier/militia concept had powerful appeal to the founders. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both spoke positively of gun ownership. No one should be surprised by this. The founders lived in a largely rural nation uncertain about its standing on the world stage. Jefferson and Madison might have felt differently if psychopaths were regularly taking flintlock rifles into shopping malls and blowing away 12 teenagers at the food court.
Unlike the First Amendment, which is a grandiloquent statement on the right of free people to express themselves that transcends all time, the Second Amendment reflects an obsession particular to the late 17th and early 18th centuries. It’s like the Third Amendment, which forbids the quartering of soldiers in private homes. The country was a very different place back then. The Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the rise of urban metropolises or the rapid escalation in firepower that today enables a deranged malcontent to mow down dozens of people with an assault rifle. We should not hesitate to admit that times have changed and ditch a constitutional provision that no longer serves any useful purpose.
Some might argue that amending the Bill of Rights is dangerous. I disagree. The problem with amending the Bill of Rights is that over the years, most of the proposals have been foolish or short-sighted. This hardly indicts the entire amendment process.
For example, with the Supreme Court narrowing the application of church-state separation, I would support an addition to the First Amendment stating explicitly that no tax money is to be spent on sectarian activities. I would not support one fostering state-sponsored prayer in public schools.
Finally, I don’t want to hear that repealing the Second Amendment is not worth pursuing because it won’t happen any time soon. I freely conceded that it will not. Our generation will not see it happen. If we’re lucky, the next generation will. (Assuming they survive climate change.)
Congress, even under the Democrats, remains in the death grip of the NRA. We should push for repeal of the Second Amendment anyway. Great ideas often take a long time to come to fruition. The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery in America, and the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed equal rights to all citizens — yet African Americans did not secure civil rights for 100 years. Women’s suffrage was first proposed in the United States in 1848. It did not become federal policy until 1920.
It is time to quit trying to reconcile our need for a sane gun policy with the antiquated language of the Second Amendment. We must cease pretending that we can live with the Second Amendment, as long as it is interpreted properly. Let’s not give judges the opportunity to misconstrue it by getting rid of it outright.
Once this is done, federal, state and local gun laws can then take whatever form the people want through their elected representatives. A sparsely populated, largely rural state like Wyoming may choose relatively few gun controls. The urban areas of the East Coast would likely adopt tighter laws.
If the idea of repeal sounds insane, remember that the first people to propose the vote for women were considered lunatics. They were subjected to verbal assaults and violence. The same thing happened to those advocating the end of child labor, the creation of labor unions, gay rights and many other good things. History has vindicated them all.
Someday history will vindicate those who laid the groundwork for the repeal of the Second Amendment. When, far in the future, that history is written, wouldn’t you like to be recorded as one who had the courage to stand on the right side?
[Editor’s note: Firearm enthusiasts should remember that this is a guest post and does not necessarily represent the opinions of the editor, who sincerely hopes not to get shot by an outraged NRA member. Angry mail should be directed to Morbo, not me. -CB]