Of course, perhaps this
defeat was merely heading off the inevitable at the pass; the Republican
controlled House had been noncommittal on even bringing the hypothetical measure
to the floor, let alone passing it. Yes,
it seems the agreed upon strategy of gun reform proponents in the wake of The
Worst Thing Imaginable, plus other recent mass shootings, of taking small
policy bites, focusing on common sense legislation that most people could agree
upon, has no direct path to the law books themselves. Various explanations abound, but primarily
the specter of Wayne LaPierre and the other members of the NRA leadership, and
their threat to launch an electoral jihad on any Republican legislators who
voted for the measure, are to blame.
At this juncture, many
people willing and eager to confront the national gun violence epidemic must be
left wondering what in the holy hell to do, and understandably so. After all, if these non-controversial reforms
that enjoyed broad public support couldn’t even clear the procedural filibuster
in the Senate, then there doesn’t seem to be much hope of achieving meaningful steps
towards reducing the carnage.
But there is a way; that
is to start talking about the 2nd Amendment itself.
If there is a more
misunderstood and misinterpreted piece of language in the United States Constitution,
good luck finding it. Here it is, quoted
directly:
“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 part that often gets
ignored in most 2nd Amendment shorthand is the ‘well-regulated militia’
bit. However, this portion is key to
understanding the actual rights being granted.
Based on the actual text of the document, not its intent, but the words
themselves, the amendment actually says that the ‘Arms’ borne by the citizens
are for the purpose of the militia itself.
Even this is to quibble
semantically, and many gun-rights advocates will continue to argue that they,
and many other gun owners, make up a kind of ad hoc militia that will,
apparently, mobilize into action to stop the threat of supposed tyranny
whenever it should rear its monstrous head.
If they think so, sure.
But, I’ll let you in on a
little secret. The 2nd
Amendment is as meaningless in today’s modern society, and has been for some
time, as the 3rd Amendment, which reads:
“No Soldier shall, in time of
peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time
of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
Both of these amendments, featured
prominently in the Bill of Rights, are products of the time in which they were
written. The drafters of the
Constitution, having just fought a war against the British, wrote the 3rd
Amendment in direct response to the previous English government quartering
troops in the homes of colonists. It was
a spiteful, reactionary rule that, realistically, was not going to be a problem
in the new nation. It remains in the
Bill of Rights, but it hasn’t been worth the ink it’s written with for over 200
years.
Just like the 3rd
Amendment, the 2nd is, on its face, a product of late 18th
Century society. Beyond the obvious food
gathering utility of owning a firearm in these early years of the Republic,
which has long since evaporated as the means of obtaining the next meal, the new
United States was a nation beset by dangers.
The Americans living at the dawn of this grand experiment in democracy
had serious concerns about attacks on their farms and homes by Native
Americans, contentious neighbors, and even wild animals. But that’s the 18th Century, when
using a musket to ward off wolves and settle disputes was an acceptable form of
conflict resolution. In the long march
of progress from 1789 to 2013, it’d be nice to think that we’ve moved beyond
sending bullets flying in the direction of people with whom we disagree, but that’s
probably not realistic.
Now, anyone who attempts
to discern the intent of the Founding Fathers of the country is invariably
projecting his/her own ideology onto the words of their texts. However, it is important to remember that this
document, the Constitution of the United States of America, was written by
men. Fallible, imperfect men, who were
capable of making mistakes. They’d
already made a big one: The Articles of Confederation. In all of the deification of the founders
(ironic, since many of them were Deists who believed in a hands-free creator
that did not meddle in the affairs of men), it’s easy to forget that the
Constitution, this document that certain elements herald as divinely inspired,
was Draft Two. They got it wrong once
before. It stands to reason that their
second go-round, while an enormous improvement, wasn’t exactly perfect.
While such a dialogue
about the merit of an entrenched part of the Bill of Rights will be met with
crowing and consternation, it is necessary if we, as a country, actually care
to address the violence that plagues us year after year. In a society that is changing so rapidly due
to technology, the environment, and the increased participation and
interconnectedness of the rest of the world, it would be foolish not to see
that most other developed countries do not have this problem. A strict Constitutionalist view is no longer
possible on these grounds, because that perspective ignores 200-plus years of
human progress.
Perhaps, in time, people
will remember that the 1st Amendment is the one that really matters,
because it allows us to argue that the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism
that, for whatever reason, has hung on.
If gun reform advocates want to go after the big fish, then the
conversation about the validity of the amendment itself needs to begin.
No comments:
Post a Comment