Second Amendment - The Truth Of Context

Anyone who read my last post might suppose that I'm a rabid advocate of absolute gun control.  I'm not.

Growing up in various places around the country (and in a military environment as well) I know that every farmer has a gun rack in the back window of his pickup, and in it, a couple of guns for shootin' varmints (a term loosely defined).  I know a lot of people who hunt and I don't see anything wrong with that.  My dad never hunted, so I never picked up the habit, but hunting is as old as man.  And, I understand that there are other reasons to own guns -- for self-protection, or (let's face it) for the occasional murder or bank robbery too.   No problem! (Except for the murder and robbery part.)

On the other hand, as I demonstrated in yesterday's article, none of these uses of guns has any basis in the Constitution.  They are neither forbidden, nor regulated.  That's also true of automobiles, pharmaceuticals, poisons, and health insurance.  In short, the Constitution leaves up to us, and to our governments, which operate for our general good, to decide how to handle all these elements of modern life.  The good news is that guns, drugs, cars, insurance, and poisons are widely available for all who have perfectly rational reasons for wanting them.  In short, regulation is not denial.

The bad news is that of all these examples, only guns are largely unregulated.  That's dumb, because guns are dangerous (probably more dangerous than insurance).  If you want to believe that "guns don't kill people," that's OK - except maybe for those (often kids, or those with the mind of a child) who get killed playing with guns, or while cleaning them; and maybe also for all those police who are killed in the line of duty by criminals.  Or possible suicides who might think twice if it weren't so easy to get a gun.  Cars don't kill people either, I guess - drivers do! But we do regulate driving, giving drivers a test, attempting to keep habitual drunks and reckless drivers from behind the wheel, and setting different standards for a license to drive a semi than for a Smartcar.  

In interpreting the law, some judges deny that context has any bearing.  But I think the second Amendment is a perfect example of why we need context.  We need context to tell us that the authors of the Constitution were thinking of militias when they penned this part of the Bill of Rights, so there is no constitutionally guaranteed right for the average citizen to own guns at all.  We also need context to tell us that even in the mostly agrarian society of the late 1700s, as now, many people in this country owned and used guns.  It was so common that no one would have thought to mention it, any more than the right to own a pig.  The first context shows why no guns, not even those of the "militia," are exempt from regulation; the second part demonstates why nobody has sought to prohibit guns generally, or ever will.

So let's get on with reasonable measures:  registration of guns; controls that might make it harder for a kid to kill himself accidentally; preventing drunks, druggies and convicted criminals from owning guns; and higher standards of licensing and background check for the purchase of guns that go far beyond the needs of hunting or personal protection:  military weapons, automatic weapons, rockets, grenade launchers, and the like.  

Comments

[Danny]

You ate very wrong about guns being unregulated. You've got to be kidding. There are thousands of laws regulating guns and gun sales.

Maybe all the Amendments should have "truth of context".

[Jhawk23]

Glad to hear from you, Danny.

Yes, I know there are laws regulating guns - maybe too many of them - and a lot might depend on where you live. In fact, since I don't own a gun, maybe I'll just educate myself a little about what kinds of regs I'd need to fulfill in my jurisdiction if I did buy one.

But my main point is, the positions taken by extremists on both sides of the question don't make a lot of sense. Should we have a complete ban on gun ownership? No, I don't think so. Does every American have a constitutional right to buy an assault weapon without namecheck or registration? No, that's bullshit too.

So I say, let's cut the posturing over unrealistic extremes, and do what works. Your experience with gun regulation suggests maybe in some areas, that's happening.