“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.” Only 27 words, yet so much controversy…
We can all see the same words, but what does it mean? The first question to be asked is, are the parts that are separated by commas separate thoughts, or should the whole sentence be defined as one idea? Specifically, does the first part, “A well regulated Militia,…” go with the part about right to keep and bear Arms? If so, many say that it is the Militia that have the right to keep and bear arms, not everyone. Every state had a militia back then, and they still do, now by the name of the national guard. However, back then, the militia was made up of everyday men with their own guns, not like today where it is a professional government group. So that does not really answer the question.
The US supreme court, believes that there is an individual right to “bear arms” included in the 2nd amendment. After all, it is included in the “Bill of Rights” (the first 10 amendments), which deals with individual liberties. Likewise, most US citizens think that the 2nd amendment bestows an individual right to “bear arms”, myself included.
Once we have cleared that hurdle and answered that question, we need to ask what does the term “bear arms” mean? Many say we should look at what the framers (authors) of the 2nd Amendment meant when they wrote it. In the time when it was written, the only “arms” were single loading muskets, single shot pistols, and cannons. So if we accept that the framers meant those types of “arms”, we still don’t know what they would think, or what we should do about other, more modern arms. They could not have conceived of missiles, rockets, tanks, machine guns or nuclear arms. So on those questions, we are left to our devices, our own reasoning power. If, as some argue, “arms” mean all arms, then the 2nd amendment would allow everyone to carry around a nuclear arm (bomb). I think we can all agree that is absurd. The reason it is absurd is that nuclear arms have the potential to kill a lot of people very quickly. Likewise, we don’t allow individual citizens to have missiles, rockets with bombs, machine guns or tanks, because they can do a lot of destruction and kill a lot of people quickly.
So if we are to allow pistols and “normal” rifles, and not allow missiles, rockets with bombs, machine guns or tanks, what do we do with “arms” in the middle? Specifically, does the 2nd Amendment allow “rapid-fire/automatic” or “assault” weapons (or bump stocks that effectively turns a rifle into a rapid-fire arm)? To decide that, we need to determine if assault or rapid-fire weapons are more like pistols and normal rifles, or more like missiles, rockets with bombs, machine guns or tanks.
On one hand, assault or rapid-fire weapons are much like rifles. Afterall, many refer to them as assault or rapid-fire rifles. However, we have now repeatedly, unfortunately, seen that assault or rapid-fire weapons can kill a lot of people very quickly. Therefore they are more like missiles, rockets with bombs, machine guns and tanks. Specifically, a machine gun and an assault or rapid-fire weapon have much the same effect: they can kill a lot of people in a short period of time.
However, advocates of allowing assault or rapid-fire weapons have another point. They say the very reason for the 2nd amendment is to protect the citizenry against a corrupt or oppressive government. Afterall, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written in the years after we had won independence from the British Crown, a good example of an oppressive and corrupt government. They argue that therefore the way to protect against an oppressive or corrupt government is to allow assault or rapid-fire weapons to be able to fight back against such a government. Without them, the citizens would not stand a chance against the modern military and police of the US government. Of course one could make the same argument about missiles, rockets with bombs, machine guns and tanks. Where do you draw the line?
This then, is the central question: do you trust the government, or not? If you do, then you have no problem with the government restricting assault or rapid-fire weapons. If you don’t trust the government, many say they will take my gun away from my “cold dead hands”. In other words, they will fight to the death if anyone tries to take their assault or rapid-fire weapons.
Should we trust the government? Could the government impose “martial law” and oppress the citizenry? There is good reason to be concerned, because anything can happen. However, there is little evidence that it has been seriously contemplated or would ever happen in the US. Take the military: in most any coup or takeover of a government, the military is almost always involved. So then, should we trust the military? I see no reason not to: there is very little evidence the military would ever participate in such a takeover. Indeed, it is ironic that the very same people that profess undying confidence in the military are often the most concerned about a coup or an oppressive government. Also, since we do not allow US citizens the right to possess missiles, rockets with bombs, machine guns or tanks, it is hard to see how an assault or rapid-fire weapon is going to make much difference against all the weapons and might of the US military and police.
Additionally, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that none of the rights granted in the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) are unlimited, not even the 1st amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech (you cannot use speech to incite violence or to cause harm to others, such as yell “fire” in a crowded theater). Furthermore, we once had a ban on assault or rapid-fire type weapons, from 1994 to 2004. There were many lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of that law, and the US Supreme Court rejected all such arguments and ruled that the law was constitutional. Therefore, we know that a ban on assault or rapid-fire weapons is allowed by the 2nd Amendment, according to the US Supreme Court, which is the only opinion that really matters (see my post “What is Constitutional”).