El Paso. Dayton. Chicago. All within 24 hours.
After 250 “mass shootings” (four or more victims) in 2019, there’s no defense for classical liberals or libertarians to not question their current understandings of the Second Amendment.
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.
Yes, there’s a Second Amendment… along with its confusing syntax and complicated history. I wrote about this topic in 2004, and nothing seems to change.
Here’s the thing… The Constitution can be amended. It has been amended 27 times. We’ve needed some of the changes for clarity, and some of those clarifying changes have still required yet more legal action because some states chose to ignore the words and spirit of those amendments.
It is possible that the Second Amendment’s language, history, and political biases make it necessary to revisit and, yes, amend the document.
In 2004, I wrote:
“A well-regulated militia…” reads the Second Amendment. Does anyone know what “regulated” means? It’s not what most people assume it means. “Regular” meant well-prepared, or well-equipped, and ready at all times. A standing army. Hence, a “regular” army is better than a “guard” on-call. Regulated does not mean “governed” in all instances, just as “run” does not always mean something people in track meets do. “Regulated” can mean “well-prepared” or “well-maintained” or even “well-regarded” in eighteenth-century English.
Although one group can insist the constitution applies to a “professional and regulated standing army,” another would point to the notion of a “well-equipped temporary brigade.” Militia meant “standing army” as often as “temporary corps” in the literature of the time.
Increasingly, no matter how I reflect on the language, I’m not convinced the Second Amendment means every sane, stable person has the right to any weapon he or she deems necessary for the security of the state. But that doesn’t matter. The amendment needs to be superseded by something clearer and more aligned with our contemporary realities.
What constitutes “infringing” on gun rights is the source of our political arguments. Most people agree that you can infringe on the rights of convicted felons and those with documented mental health issues. Is it infringing to limit the numbers and types of guns one can own? You cannot randomly buy a tank, a rocket launcher, or some smaller but equally outrageous weapons. These are “arms” that you cannot keep and bear.
Would it be “infringing” to require a license for gun ownership? Not per gun, but per individual? It seems reasonable to require training and certification before allowing someone to own a weapon.
Here’s the problem. I current leaders could not compose a simple, clear, new Amendment to the Constitution that would maintain some gun rights with limitations a supermajority of states would endorse.
We’re stuck with the current Second Amendment, which means confusion and a lack of progress on meaningful gun limitations.
Discover more from Almost Classical
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
