The Wild West Survives

Wild West


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.
Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

The Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1788 but it was not until 1791 that the Bill of Rights was ratified which contained the Second Amendment.  All of this is history and indisputable but that has never deterred the American People from argument.  When these documents were ratified the United States had no standing army; indeed, the framers had resisted any call for a standing army as a result of their experience with armies being used to subjugate the people.  They feared them and had no use for them.  As a result they determined to use militias formed from the citizenry for the common defense and provision was made that the citizenry would not be hindered from the possession of firearms.  They thought the risk of improper usage of firearms to be far less than the risk of misuse of a standing army.

By today’s standards that was a quaint thought but I am certain the framers of our Constitution did not foresee the dense population and dangerous world in which we live.  It became evident quite soon that a standing army was going to be necessary in order to be able to mount a timely defense against attack and we were set on the path we now tread, having the most expensive military in the world.  It is mind-boggling sometimes how things can change.

Once again the debate over gun control is on the front page and the NRA is rallying its forces to beat back any attempt to restrict firearms in any way by using the analogy of the slippery slope.  The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment forbids restriction of firearms even though we do make exceptions to that rule.

Interpretation of the Second Amendment seems quite clear to me if poorly worded.  It probably was more appropriate in 1791.  First it states a postulate, that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.  Then it states the condition of that postulate which is the right to bear arms.  It seems clear that the right to bear arms is predicated on the need to provide for the security of the free state.  Logically it follows that if we no longer rely on militias then we need no longer allow for the unrestricted possession of firearms.

I understand about the slippery slope thing and the adage that if we outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.  I get that.  What I don’t get is that legal authority cannot restrict their possession and use.  Why can’t we restrict the possession of assault rifles and clips that allow for 30 rounds in a handgun?  Why can’t we come up with some compromise that will allow us to get the most egregious weapons off the streets?

I recall that just before the Presidential election I was in a store that deals in firearms and a guy in line in front of me was purchasing multiple boxes of ammunition for fear that the new President was going to outlaw ammunition.  This is the same kind of response we get anytime we begin to talk about gun regulation.  To be sure, there are those who would ban all guns of any type but I don’t think we are there yet as a nation.  The only legal uses of firearms are for hunting, recreation and defense.  We do not need assault weapons to bring down deer unless you are a really bad shot.  If you are that bad perhaps you need to rethink the propriety of your being in the woods.

After the event in Tucson some people said that if there had been more guns there then they could have stopped the shooter.  I doubt that.  What would have happened is that there would have been lead flying everywhere.  A bullet is indiscriminate.  It will kill whatever is in front of it.  As evidence all we need are the instances of death by friendly fire (an oxymoron if ever there was one) in our military.  I think everything was done that could have been done.  The one person who admitted having a gun didn’t have time to get a shot off.

I don’t hunt any more.  I used to and I don’t have anything against it.  It just doesn’t appeal to me but I do own several weapons.  Why?  I don’t know, I just like them.  They aren’t loaded so what kind of protection is that?  If you don’t have a loaded one on you when you need it then they are little use for protection.  But, like many Americans, I just like mine and I’m not likely to give them up.  But a 30/30 with 5 shots is different than a Glock with 31.

Certainly the manufacturers are all for unlimited possession but we are told that our country is the supplier of arms to the drug cartels in Mexico and around the world.  On top of that, Kentucky is one of the easiest places to purchase weapons.  Do we really want that?

My take on sensible gun regulation.  I think I have dealt with the Second Amendment and the slippery slope but I am interested in your personal opinions on the matter.