Excuse Me, Is That Your Gun or Are You Just Happy to See Me?

Right, to borrow a phrase, here we go again. Having watched part of a piece on 60 Minutes yesterday which basically stated how evil guns are and how stupidly obsessed and foolish gun-owners are, I somehow find that yes, once again, I am unable to hold my tongue. Now, I'll be the first to admit that I didn't watch the entire segment, but on the other hand, it was 60 Minutes. If you really believe that it was anything other than an op/ed piece masquerading as "objective reporting," then I've got a nice bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Whenever I see, or get involved in a debate on guns and gun-control laws, I can't help feeling that it's a pity we no longer teach History in this country. Oh, sure, high schools and universities offer courses in what they call History, but that's generally not what's going on in those classes. It seems that teachers and professors are more interested in "deconstructing" historical figures and proving that they were incredible douchebags who were just as venal as the rest of us, if not more so. Very little critical thinking or analysis occurs, or is even encouraged; rather, it is an exercise in the professor indoctrinating the students in his own personal agenda, which is expected to be regurgitated back verbatim if the student wants a passing grade. That, of course, might be okay if you happen to be Uncle Joe Stalin, but in a society that values freedom of thought, can be just a bit problematic.

If we are going to understand why the Second Amendment to the Constitution exists, and why it is worded the way it is, we have to first understand the history involved and behind it. If we can't do that, then it is impossible to really discuss the issue of guns in this country and what, if anything, we should do about it. If neither side of the debate is able or willing to do that, then, really, they just need to shut up for a while.

First of all, for those who advocate banning firearms entirely: the Second Amendment exists and, like everything else in the Constitution, is the supreme "law of the land." If you don't like it, there exists a method to change that law: it's called the Amendment process. Get two-thirds of the States to agree with you, and the law will change. But a word of caution: trying to go through the back door, as it were, with local laws and regulations that, in the end, conflict with the Second Amendment, is a dangerous thing. If you succeed, not only do you subvert the Constitution, you set a precedent that allows others to use that same method against rights and issues you support. And for those who support the right to own guns: the Second Amendment guarantees you that right. It does not, however, guarantee you the right to own a howitzer. Get over it.

But back to the issue at hand, there were very specific reasons why the framers of the Constitution included the Second Amendment, and this is where we have to understand History.

The Founding Fathers of this nation held a very strong bias against the concept of a standing, professional army. That bias was so strong, in fact, that the Constitution only provides for one permanent military establishment, the Navy. The Constitution states that the Congress must maintain a navy, but only provide for an army, and then only for a limited period of time, two years. Translated into everyday English, that means Congress has to vote every two years to authorize the existence of the United States Army. If that body wanted to, it could disband the Army simply by voting not to reauthorize it. The Navy is exempt from that, and was authorized by the framers of the Constitution as a permanent organization, because they viewed a navy as a far less threatening entity. An organization dedicated to the exercise of sea power, after all, isn't quite as dangerous as an organization dedicated to the exercise of land power.

Given their experience with British troops prior to the Revolution - which, by the way, is why the Amendment prohibiting the quartering of troops in civilian homes exists - and the Revolution itself, that wasn't a completely unreasonable bias to hold. The framers of the Constitution also held the belief that standing armies, along with the dynastic tradition, was a primary cause of the wars and other troubles of Europe, and they were determined to avoid making what they viewed as the same mistake. Again, given their experiences, not completely unreasonable.

In that light, the Second Amendment is an expression of the 18th Century concept of the levee en masse. In other words, the framers of the Constitution, rather than relying on a standing army to defend the nation, were relying directly on the citizens of the nation to do that. Their thinking was that if and when the nation was threatened, the citizens would "flock to the colours" and form an army of their own accord. In effect, they took the idea of the Minuteman and made it a fundamental law. It thus follows that that citizenry must be armed, and so we get "the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now, one can argue that the Government can rely, if it so chooses, on a levee en masse, but that it doesn't necessarily follow that private citizens need to own the weapons. The Government could keep and stockpile the weapons, only handing them out at need. But to do that actually defeats the concept of the levee en masse. If the Government is going to "own" the weapons, it might as well also have the people on hand to use them - in other words, a standing army - in which case it really doesn't need the citizens. Which also brings us to the other reason the framers included the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment also exists as a check on the power of the Government. The Founding Fathers were concerned about the Government being too powerful, and that it might be tempted to act in ways contrary to the interests of the people. An armed populace functioned as a counterweight to the power of the Government. The belief was that, faced with a population that had access to firearms, the Government would be less likely to become oppressive.

Again, History comes into play here. Not only was the nation still essentially a frontier society at the time the Constitution was written, it was easier and cheaper to allow the citizens to defend that frontier, and themselves, than it was to maintian a standing army to do that for them. More importantly, there was no difference between the firearms available to a professional soldier and those available to a private citizen, save that the private citizen often had access to firearms that were superior.

Remember, the Second Amendment was written in the Gunpowder Era. Cavalry still fought from horseback, and their primary weapon was the sabre, not a firearm. Cannon, muskets, pistols and rifles were all muzzle-loading weapons using black powder, and an expert rifleman could get off perhaps two shots a minute. Early rifles, which were far more accurate and lethal than smooth-bore muskets, were relatively prevalent on the frontier, while the US Army, such as it was, didn't start using rifles until the middle of the Civil War, and didn't adopt repeating rifles in large numbers until after that conflict. The interrupted breech-block for artillery wasn't invented until the late 1800s, and semi-automatic weapons were an invention of the 1930s.

So, in point of fact, the weapons available to civilians were often superior to those available to professional soldiers. Thus, the function of the Second Amendment as a check on the power of the Government. Technology changes, of course, and now we have automatic weapons, but that doesn't matter. It doesn't change that function of the Second Amendment. Nor were the framers of the Constitution idiots; they didn't expect that technology would remain stagnant. Yet, they still wrote the Amendment in the way they did.

A firearm is a tool, just like any other tool, no more and no less. It can be used properly, or it can be misused. But, in terms of the debate on gun control, there has never been a gun that just up and killed someone all on its own. That generally requires some moron pulling the trigger.

The mistake that gun control proponents make, aside from ignoring History, is that they view the gun as cause and not tool. There isn't anything that you can do with a gun that you can't do with an ice pick. It just takes longer to do it with the ice pick, and tends to be messier. But if someone wants to kill themself or someone else, they're going to do it whether they have access to a gun or not. You will be just as dead whether I shoot you in the head with a Glock, or just cave your skull in with a 60-oz Louisville Slugger. Should we then have baseball bat control laws?

Statistics can be misleading, and a haven for bias. I have seen it argued that having a gun in a house makes it statistically more likely that a suicidal individual will use that weapon to kill themself. Well, yes; if I were suicidal, and the choice was between hanging myself and shooting myself, I'd choose the one which is quickest and guaranteed to work.

If you want to "control" guns, if the objective is to "control" the accidental shootings of people, then what you really need to do is "control" how people use guns, not ban the guns. During "basic training" in the military, they train people how to properly handle firearms before they ever think about giving them any ammunition. There is no reason why it shouldn't be the same for civilians. Right now, that part of the system is flawed in that if you pass the background checks, you can walk right out of the store with your weapon of choice and all the bullets you want . . . or, at least, an amount that won't attract the attention of the ATF. But there is no reason why a civilian who wants to own a firearm should not be required to attend a mandatory firearms safety course as a part of that process.