The Orlando, Fla., massacre has ignited yet again — for the zillionth time — the debate over whether to enact tighter controls on the purchase of guns such as the weapon used by the monster who mowed down those innocent victims.
I don’t intend to enter that debate here. I do, though, want to introduce you to an idea that’s being kicked around: rewriting the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I’ve long believed that of all the first 10 amendments, those that guarantee our civil liberties, the Second is the most horribly written of them.
It seems to contain two distinct references that appear to be at odds with each other.
“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.”
Are clear on that? Now? Forever?
Hardly.
Gun-control advocates glom onto the first part, the reference to the well-regulated militia; gun-owner advocates cling to the second part that refers to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The founders inserted a couple of commas in the middle of the text that seem — to my eyes, at least — to add to the confusion.
Mac McCann, a blogger for the Dallas Morning News, has posited the notion that the Second Amendment needs to be modernized. Will it happen? Sure, it’ll happen about the time both sides of the gun violence divide come together, lock arms and sing in perfect harmony.
McCann writes: “I hold the Constitution in the highest regard, and I’m naturally skeptical of government power. But I’m moved by Obama’s words: ‘to actively do nothing is a decision, as well’ — and clearly not a good decision.
“We need a text that reflects the will of the American people in today’s world — which, of course, is far different from the world the Constitution was written in.”
Of course, any effort to amend an amendment is going to be interpreted as repealing the original text. We’ve had discussion in the past about amending the First Amendment, too. Free-speech/freedom-of-religion/free-press purists such as myself, quite naturally, have opposed such a thing on its face. That puts us in a bind when discussions come up regarding the Second Amendment, which is held in equally high regard by purists interested in gun-related issues.
This notion of modernizing the Second Amendment, though, is a discussion worth having.
If only we can have it intelligently and without the demonization that is guaranteed to erupt.
Your thoughts? Talk to me.
Kudos to this guy for at least realizing the only way to undo one Constitutional amendment is with another Constitutional amendment. If what all the gun-control advocates are saying is true, that 90-percent of the NRA members favor stricter gun control, then a well-worded amendment should be a slam dunk, right? You don’t seem convinced.
BTW, what about people who are actually in a militia … the Michigan militia, for instance?
I’ll play amateur historian – everything subject to actual evidence (like the actual US Constitution).
The Founders came from a common political culture, more or less. They believed that the only legitimate votes should come from landed freemen. Further, the Electors for President were chosen by the States – and all of those started out selecting Electors through their respective legislators – a very small subset of landed freemen. IWO, no “popular vote” for Electors.
In both cases, the vote in general and selection of Electors, the Constitution is not prescriptive.
I believe an amendment requires 2/3 in (both?) houses and ratification by 3/4’s of the states (38 of 50 is the mimimum) – so to amend requires broad national support.
Considered by a simple head count by Party, to amend the 2nd is a non-starter.
And now I’ll play amateur sociologist – even more perilous.
A much trickier consideration is to assess “the national culture” (which does not really exist – given that all “micro-cultures” don’t “melt” or “blend” – the “melting pot” is a poor metaphor).
Here’s one example – in Alaska, even liberals think guns are cool. I’ll bet many liberals in Texas think so as well (but may keep such sentiments mostly unspoken so as not to offend their more tender brethren).
The tricky part is that I’ll guess that many Americans understand that mass shootings are rare – they let the emotional get over the last one and get on with their lives. I’m one of those Americans. I feel horrible when I hear the news, am sympathetic to those that are directly touched, and somewhat less so about those that express fear (like the esteemed John Kanelis).
After awhile I get cold – at least more rational – and seek rational evidence to leaven the fear.
It’s not that difficult to demonstrate that death by lighting strike is more common than death by shooting atrocity.
Another thing. Steven Pinker – a scientist, one who is rational, one who knows how to judge and process evidence of the quantifiable sort (called “data”) has noted (in The Better Angels of our nature) that the broad trend for gun violence has been in a broad decline in America for decades.
(John, this is one reason I suggested that you go find some FBI data on the matter – dust off your (or a colleagues) Lexis/Nexis account and leaven your own concerns with some hard data)
100,000 newspaper articles and millions of opinons may arouse emotions, passions, and fear, but all that emphasis does not change the body count.
Dare I call some of the emphasis “fascination”?
This morning I heard one of my familiar NPR announcers express fascination with the shooter’s motivations – one could almost hear him licking his chops. I’ll say his particular micro-culture is not congruent with mine in this respect. His disgust has receeded and now curiosity has kicked in.
Sorry, I don’t much care about why scum is scum – or why the mentally ill is mentally ill – “amateur psychologist” is not my bag.