The Second Amendment

As long as guns are easily obtained by anyone who is not already a convicted felon or certified as mentally ill there will be random acts of horrific violence in this country.  That much is indisputable.  The questions are: Does the second amendment require us to allow anybody not convicted of a serious crime or certified as mentally ill to be allowed to obtain them.   And do we accept that easy access to guns is essential enough to our society that we just have to accept random massacres as the price?

There are some who argue that gun ownership is the only thing standing between the American people and a dictatorial government.  (Most of those people actually believe we have a dictatorial government now.)  During the US revolution the populace was able to use their arms to overthrow British rule.  Perhaps having an armed populace helped keep dictators at bay at the beginning of the new country.  Now democratic institutions and a democratic ethos pervades this country.  I have met very few people, especially those in the armed forces, who don't have an almost religious devotion the democratic principles this country was founded on.  Reverence for our democratic institutions is inculcated in our children from kindergarten on.  I have full faith in the american people that no clique could pull off a take-over.  There would be such a backlash against anyone who would try it from every part of the military, the government, and the rest of society that a successful coup is beyond imagination.  Another factor making it ever more unlikely is the growing ethnic diversity of  the county.  The diversity guarantees that no one group could gain enough power to take-over.  I can't imagine in my wildest dreams that this country could possibly be taken over from within by a non-democratic forces.  Occasionally a politician seems to endorse policies that don't appear to be totally democratic.  The best bulwark against them has never been armed insurrection, but public debate and press coverage.  In my mind this is the most direct evidence that the old saying is true:  the pen is mightier than the sword.

Others argue that they use guns for hunting and sport.  I have a lot of sympathy for rural people who have grown up with guns and consider them something akin to a cross between a hammer and a football.   I have to say that when it comes to balancing a minority's desire to participate in a sport against the many lives lost due to gun violence it seems a no-brainer which side wins.

Some argue that they feel they need guns for self-defense.  My understanding is that there are statistics that show that unless a person is very used to using guns, like a police officer or a military person, they will not use it effectively if they are attacked.  It is more likely that the gun would be taken away from them and used against them. Also, if the owner has children it is more likely they will harm themselves or others than it will be effectively used to defend them.

Of course the supreme court has said many times that the second amendment does not guarantee a citizen the right to bear arms.  It guarantees a well regulated militia the right to bear arms.   Having said that if we imagine that the supreme court was and is wrong in its many pronouncements on the subject I would suggest this:  The founders were referring to the arms available to them at the time.  Not to the high-powered automatic weapons of today.  So lets let the right to bear arms be granted to the average citizen.  Arms as understood by the founders:  Single shot guns and riffles that were difficult and time consuming to load, often misfired, and were not accurate beyond 20 feet.

Having said all that, the least we can do is put the same requirements on gun ownership as we put on car ownership:  registration of the gun, licensing of owners, and special registration and licensing of trucks (i.e. high-powered or automatic guns).