Focused on Chitty Chitty Bang-Bang

"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."

This grammatically dubious sentence was written in the late 18th Century and was added as the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  It was intended to provide an outline of rights which were to be granted to citizens of the then-new nation.

But what does it mean?  

It's impossible to try to divine the intent of the authors without placing this sentence in its historical context.  The former colonists had just won their war for independence -- barely.  There was by no means any sense of assurance that the fighting with their former occupiers was completely over (see 1812, War of).  And most-importantly, the framers of the constitution knew first-hand what (things that they thought were) oppression looked like.  

Within this context, many would argue that the intent here was to make allowances for a formal, regulated, armed militia, which could be called upon to defend the rights of their fellow citizens, in the event of government overreach, or enemy incursion.  As history shows, the disparity between the type of weaponry to which the citizenry and the government had access was quite small at this period.  While a lone person probably didn't have access to a cannon, a small group of people and craftsmen could more than likely have made one.  The primary difference in fighting ability at this point in time would probably have been naval.  As to a ground skirmish, between comparatively equal armament and the elements of guerrilla warfare that had just won them their independence, a militia of citizens could very well have held their own for a while under either of the two listed scenarios.

In this instance, under these circumstances, we'd probably be hard-pressed to find anyone opposed to this Amendment.

OK, so what has changed?

To start, the disparity of weaponry between that which the government can obtain and which the citizenry can, is now incalculable.  In short, with tanks, planes, drones, missiles and an army, if the government overreaches, or a foreign invader encroaches on US soil, there is nothing the individual can do to stop it from happening.   A militia would not fare much better.    

Another change is that over two centuries have transpired since the penning of the United States Constitution, during which there have been a number of judicial rulings that have refined the scope of the rights granted therein, the Second Amendment included.  For instance, one cannot own a tank, or an intercontinental ballistic missile.  One cannot speak in such a manner that will incite riot.  The courts have appeared to send a consistent message over the years that with rights come responsibilities.

Another change is the clear degradation in society's fundamental respect for human life.  Whereas 225 years ago, most people associated the word "gun" with hunting for the daily meal and/or protecting the homestead, in 2016 word-association with "gun" leads to a much darker place of murder and violence.  While there are still hunters-a-plenty, and folks who own guns solely for personal protection, the simple fact is that these law-abiding citizens are not the ones receiving the attention in the frenzy of today's 24 hour news cycle, and, as a result, or as a cause thereof,(chicken/egg?) the attention of the public at large.

Finally, there is the unity factor.  Having just won their independence, the burgeoning nation had no red states and blue states.  There were just states.  United States.  They hadn't had time yet for the infighting knuckleheadedness we see these days. 

Yeah, but what about the part , "...shall not be infringed"?  That seems pretty clear.

And here's where we are today.  What constitutes infringement?  Where is the line?  Some states, counties and municipalities say the line is at personal ownership  any kind of firearm.  It's simply not allowed.  Some draw the line at concealed carry, while others go full-on cowboy and allow for open carry.  And when arguing each of these standards, the Founding Fathers are invoked, and their "real intentions" are used as the foundation of arguments -- for both sides.

Again, we need to put things into historical perspective.  The men who composed the United States Constitution were in many ways visionaries, who had bold new ideas for their time.  They were also, however, limited by their times.  They believed that only white, male land-owners should be able to run for office.  They believed that women should not be able to vote.  The believed either that it wasn't worth the potential unraveling of a consensus to fight the concept, or were straight-up in favor of actually owning other human beings.  While we do well to look to the good in our past, learning from the wisdom of those who came before us, these were not perfect men.  And while our judicial system is precedent-based, we simply cannot say, "this is what the 18th Century farmers thought we should do, so let's go with it."  

So where do we go from here?

It seems we can all agree that there is a problem in the United States, as regards gun violence.  Taking the myriad components that contribute to it, and pointing to that one thing as the reason is both short-sighted and foolish.  Any "solution" based on such thinking is a panacea, destined to fail.  Fixing what is wrong takes the kind of thinking exhibited in Philadelphia in the late 18th Century.   We must look at all angles, make every attempt to allow for future possibilities, and act in a manner that we feel will serve the nation well going forward.  

Looking at the recent mass shooting in Orlando, would stricter gun control laws alone have prevented the massacre from occurring?  Probably not.  Would a fundamental change in the way in which we treat violence against women in this country have landed this man in jail, incapable of harming anyone else, after he abused his ex-wife?  Perhaps.  Would more acceptance of our homosexual brothers and sisters have spared that bar and its patrons from targeting?  One would think.  Would that same acceptance have allowed the man to have simply come out, as opposed to exploding in a fit of murderous rage? (We are convinced this tragedy has just as much -- if not more --  to do with his being closeted than it does with ISIS.)  Speaking of ISIS, had we better interdepartmental communication as regards terrorist suspects, could we have avoided the situation entirely?  Or, if we showed more inclusion to our Muslim neighbors, would that integration result in more cooperation within that community?  It would have to, no?

As we can see, there are numerous factors that may have contributed just to this one shooting.  And that's not even mentioning the fact that, if mental health issues were treated for what they really are -- health issues -- the man may have gone on to live a productive, healthy, hate-free life.  And 49 people would be alive today.

Is completely banning the guns the answer?  No.  First, it's never going to happen, so in essence, anyone espousing that position is saying, "I want to do nothing".  The same holds true for those who advocate for completely unregulated ownership of all firearms.  Neither of these two stances make sense, and neither will ever be enacted.  Is taking another look at the Second Amendment, however, in order?  We think so.  And we think the look should be a deep dive.

The 15th Amendment to the US Constitution granted the right to vote to former (male) slaves.  The 19th Amendment extended that right to all women.  In the most-direct correlation that which we propose, the 18th Amendment banned the production, transport and sale of "intoxicating beverages" then, 13 years later, the 21st Amendment repealed the 15th, in its entirety.  The nation realizes that they made a mistake, and corrective action was taken.  That is what we propose here.

The corrective action in this instance, however, would be to craft a common-sense, 21st Century document that accounts for all of the factors in today's world, while keeping a firm eye on the potential needs of our nation's future.  A clearly-written Amendment, with well-defined parameters, that would replace the vague and, frankly, outdated text of the Second Amendment. 

Our Constitution provides several methods by which it can be modified.  What we would propose is this:

1)  Announce a date for commencement of amendment crafting that falls after every member of Congress has faced an election, thus giving the People their initial voice. 
2)  3/4 of both the House and the Senate must then approve the Amendment as written.  At this point the Amendment becomes Proposed.  (we opt for this over a Constitutional Convention of states, because that is too much of a wild card that would open the entire Constitution up to modification.  The potential for mission creep here would be enormous, and it is simply too great a risk to take.)
3)  For Ratification, we would be in favor of taking the decision out of the hands of the State Legislatures, who, unfortunately, many voters could not even name, let alone say they have voted for.  We would favor the State Convention option, bringing the decision closer to the people for final ratification.

There will always be special interests who will want to let their money affect the process and this would be no different. In fact, it is virtually a certainty that this would be a very bitter, intense, difficult fight.  There are people who want the absolute right to bear arms.  There are people who want all guns banned.  Both of these groups have high-dollar support.  Most of us are in the middle, though.  Most of us feel that there is a middle ground to be found.  We need to find it.

Will resolving this issue mean that there will be no more mass shootings?  Will it mean that there will be no more gun violence in the streets of our cities?  No more domestic killings using a gun?  Will suicides by gone become a thing of the past?   Of course not.  

But it will be a step in the right direction.

Until next time...