Back to Gun Control

As advertised, let's talk second amendment. Undoubtedly the most employed argument against gun control, and one of the silliest. All good Americans are supposed to rise up in revolt anytime anyone hints at threatening our unalienable constitutional rights. But like many knee-jerk, uninformed responses it is based in ignorance and lack of examination. So lets examine. Hold on to your hats, gang, this one might get long.

First off, thanks to a poorly placed (or unnecessary, depending on your interpretation) comma, we aren't entirely sure what the framers actually meant. There are two leading contenders:

1 -  the right to bear arms must be protected so that the populace be available to form armed militia

2 - the populace must be allowed to keep their weapons to protect themselves from an oppressive government

To be honest, I don't really care how that coin flip lands because I think both are covered by the same fact - we now have a standing army. The largest, most advanced, best funded (by a lot!) military in the world that is more than capable of defending our borders against anyone silly enough to attack us by the conventional means that any militia might be needed to defend against. (That same military's relative ineffectiveness at combating the new types of warfare to which we are now subject is another topic.) So much for rationale number 1. 

As for number 2, while the scale and number of military style weapons in the hands of private citizens is disturbing and alarming, it still doesn't begin to stand up to the military just described.   Even the most hard-core paranoid para-military wackos out there can't actually think they can stand up to a concerted military attack. Which is wonderfully ironic considering the very thing they fear - those same "jack-booted thugs"  showing up to take away their guns - are more than capable of taking away the very same guns they say they have to have to keep them from taking them. And their thinking is even more tortured than that last sentence. "If we don't keep these guns you are going to show up and take these guns!" The combination of circular logic and delusional paranoia is just breathtaking. Rationale number 2, thanks for coming out, take a seat.

Let's stop arguing about how it should be interpreted - what that damn comma actually means - and recognize that either way it just isn't applicable to our times. Better yet, you're both right, but it still doesn't matter. This NY Times piece, and the first comment that follows, say it very well. Instead let's look more broadly at out insistence that the framers have the final say on all things and that we cannot and should not evolve. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of the framers, big fan. Amazing cats that were remarkably progressive thinkers, I'd like to think they would expect better of us. Why did they build in the process to amend if they didn't expect things to change? Another irony: the thing we are so loathe to change was itself a change. How dare you suggest we amend that amendment?! Or - gasp! - get rid of it. There is even wonderful and popular precedence for the coming and going of amendments. Can you say prohibition? Then have another cocktail and toast the 21st amendment's repeal of the 18th amendment. And that only took 14 years!

So my plea to all guilty parties: please, please stop trotting out the 2nd amendment to defend the indefensible. Give the constitution and the framers the actual respect to which you pretend, ditch the misguided indignation and ignorant rationalizing, open your ears and your minds and just get over it! 

On a lighter note, one of my all-time favorite bumper stickers: "I support the right to arm bears."

Next time on the gun control channel - "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."