Freedom and the Second Amendment

The powerful lobbying of the NRA is supported by one unbreakable tenet of what is seen as an integral part of the American identity: the second amendment. The ‘we the people’ rhetoric has historically been particularly effective at organizing the masses against gun control. It has been argued, successfully, that any attempt to restrict firearms is as an affront to the freedom of Americans.

 

But what does the second amendment really say? It’s as if the first four words that specifically mention “militia” are without any weight in this argument. How many of the armed people in the United States, in fact, how many members of the NRA, are part of any organized militia? Very few. At the risk of making a sweeping statement, the sort of discipline required of members of militias or armies (you know, the discipline to not ask questions and simply follow orders) doesn’t seem like a trait that those who hate the government are likely to possess.

And it is isn’t just the word militia that goes without notice by the NRA and anti gun control advocates. Apparently the word regulated also escapes serious consideration. Though an argument can be made on whether the word “regulated” is referring to the weapons or the militia itself, it is clear that the forefathers of the country meant for some sort of oversight. As this blog post points out: If we assume that a civilian population is required to keep arms to protect itself from tyranny,  then by the words of the Constitution itself… we have to regulate those very arms.

The lack of regulation across America is a concern. That almost anyone can purchase weapons in one state or another, or failing that can engage in a straw purchase (purchasing a weapon at a gun show, or having another person illegally obtain the weapon), is hard to stomach. That the NRA is pushing for even LESS regulation than the practically non-existent measures today is absolutely frightening. In essence, the NRA wants no regulation of firearms, as they believe (and promote) that any regulation is an affront to freedom. But the NRA wasn’t always against regulation; in fact, right after the Colorado shooting in 1999, the NRA supported closing any loopholes in background checks. The NRA has become increasingly rigid in its stance against regulation and as regulation has decreased, violent crime in America has skyrocketed.

But how does the ideal of freedom and the right to bear arms even intersect? The amendment doesn’t acknowledge personal freedoms, but freedom and security of the state. Freedom, specifically, from an invading motherland that was trying, desperately, to force a religious narrative onto a country (ironic, really, when you consider the extremely religious trajectory of this country in the last few decades). Individual gun ownership today is not geared toward protecting the larger population, but is quite specifically geared to personal security (which in itself is not a bad thing, but certainly unworthy of using the second amendment as a blanket justification). And, of course, as cruel as fate is, the greatest threat to personal security is the lack of control over gun ownership!

If there is one thing that infringes on freedom, one would have to think it is the lack of freedom to be safe. Simple forms of regulation and control could have the power to increase personal security, thereby increasing the freedom (as often cited by the NRA) of “ordinary law abiding citizens”.