Firearms

Firearms – 

One of my students wrote in his paper that the Constitution, confirmed by the Supreme Court, gave him the right to own a gun and shoot, perhaps kill, anyone he didn’t like.  I of course wrote him a three page reply (single spaced) in answer to his misinterpretation of the constitution and the Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller. But I think that most people believe that my student is correct in his interpretation. 

So let’s look at the Constitution:

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.

The reader should note that the amendment in question is essentially a series of clauses in one sentence separated by commas.  But in 20^th century English we might reduce those clauses to two: 1) A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, and 2) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We might translate this as a conditional “Since (if) a well regulated …” (protasis), then “the right of the people…” (apodosis).  We might also interpret the middle clauses to be qualifiers and interpret the meaning of the sentence as “A well regulated militia, …,  ..., shall not be infringed.”

We often forget the protasis or antecedent clause[s] in this sentence and emphasize only the apodosis or consequent clause[s], but they go together to express the complete thought.  Until our recent political divide, most often the courts and the legislature of the various states have interpreted the “well regulated militia” to mean the National Guard the successor of the 18^th century militias.  In some cases the militia also meant the State Police of a particular state.

Now I am not against guns per se.  But I do think we need to leave our anxieties about guns to common sense.  A gun is a useful tool.  It can protect us from wild beasts, (my great, great grandmother was afraid of the howling wolves at their abode in Lake County, Indiana), it can be used as a sporting thing, like archery in terms of target shooting and skeet.   But military style weapons used in warfare should be left to the military and the militias.  If you need an AR-15 to hunt deer, you’re probably not a good shot and need more target practice. Just saying…

We restrict the sales of arms such as bazookas, flame-throwers, tanks, rocket launchers, land mines, hand grenades and other military style weapons why can’t we restrict sales of semi-automatic rifles and kits to make them fully automatic?    If we need protection from criminals who might burglarize our homes, perhaps we should look at legalizing land mines or some form of improvised explosive device.  But if you would advocate for land mines to protect your property, we would think you are nuts, yet we are perfectly willing to think you’re sane if you want an assault rifle.

I also think that anyone buying a gun rifle or other such device should be required to undergo some safety-training (be well regulated); too many people have shot themselves or have otherwise been injured for lack of safety training. In rural areas a gun might be a necessary tool, you wouldn’t want to go into the woods (forest) without one, in many cases.  You might need a rifle to protect your cattle from wolves or predator cats.  But let’s have a bit of reason when it comes to firearms. Even in the military you are trained to use your weapon safely, and in fact you learn to take it apart and keep it clean, lubricated, and usable.  The bearing of firearms should be well-regulated.

Do we want any fool to carry a firearm?  

Should we allow someone bearing a grudge against someone use his/her weapon upon whom they bear that grudge?  Surely we don’t.  But in too many cases including the most recent mass shootings the shooter bore a grudge and acted upon it.

The old saw is certainly true “what fools these mortals be!”