No, the key word is not "militia", as the progressive authoritarian talking points, liberally distributed and slavishly parroted here and elsewhere, demand we submit to, as automatons of the State. The "key" is to understand the context within which the amendment was written and the context within which previously independent states "submitted" to a federal republic. Those states knew that their well regulated militias, which would stand as their freedom from an oppressive central government, would exist only if individuals could bring their own weapons. So here is a modest proposal to "progressives". Don't lose 1000 elections at every level of government for about 8 years and then act like you can dictate what law abiding citizens can do. How about trying to follow the process and repeal the second amendment? Can't do that? it's because a large majority of people disagree with you. Not a cancer. People disagree with you.
11
Steve Scalise barely survived after being shot by a deranged gunman, and it appears that his gun fetish has grown.
And there are reports that he may be speaking at an anti lgbt rally after a lesbian saved his life.
These people’s minds don’t generally change.
10
The cancer has also grown in our Congress who now are bought and paid for by the NRA. In Iowa the NRA gave Senator Joni Ernest $3,124,273, Rep David Young $707,262. It's all about the money.
8
Take away the 2nd Amendment and we become subjects to the sovereign that has the guns.
10
First of all, the idea of forming a militia is that the people are already armed, right? You don't go, “Lets form a militia—oh, nobody has any guns? Dang. We'll work on that later.” So you have to let people have guns if you are going to protect the formation of militias.
Secondly, you cannot seriously believe that we're going to stop mass killings by regulating “bump stocks.” The LV shooter had an arsenal in his room and 50 lb of Tannerite (explosive) in his car. Take away the bump stock, and we still have a problem. In fact, the gun control ideas being trotted out in the aftermath of the shooting are just-pretend solutions for stopping mass killings. We had an assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004 and still got Columbine. (The ban was not renewed.)
See, the problem is not really the guns, Timothy. Not really. It's already illegal to murder people; the problem is that we have gotten to the point culturally that a lot of people just don't care. Even if you repeal the Second Amendment (and, admit it, that's what you want), confiscate guns (good luck with that), and make the sale and possession of guns illegal, innocent people will still be killed by criminals, or religious fanatics, or sociopaths, or meth-heads with an angry ax to grind. Choose your own examples. You gain little or nothing by focusing on guns, but you repeal the Second Amendment at great peril. What would come next--the “hate speech” allowing First Amendment? The slope is slippery.
4
The US remains the most violent nation on the planet. It has sent troops to every corner off the world. Since Vietnam, it has ruthlessly killed hundreds of thousands of men women and children living in foreign nations. It sends out drones with hellfire missiles that rain down death on people in other nations, frequently killing innocents and sometimes killing the current definition of "bad guys", terrorists. Why not face the fact that this is a warrior nation that encourages and sustains the use of violence to get rid of whomever is designated the enemy.
The notion that we will become peaceful if only we pass a few laws limiting certain kinds of weapons is a pipe dream. You want peace? Quit electing people to high office who openly boast about how tough they are and how they support every ridiculous war in which we have engaged. Quit pretending every young man who we arm and send into foreign nations is a hero. Quit lionizing every cop and every soldier who uses violence.
10
Natural law supersedes even the Constitution. Say I was an alien immigrant to earth and just wanted to live greatfully amidst God's bounty and provide for my family. The thought that politicians could tell me when, how, and even IF I could defend my precious right to life is preposterous. I can't accept it and I won't abide it. I am a free man. Don't tread on me! And don't presume to know what I 'need'.
2
Another cancer in the Constitution is the Electoral College system.
3
The Second Amendment - the only thing absolutely perfect for "Repeal and Replace".
2
Nice job quoting any founding fathers for support of your views.
When George Washington signed the Militia Acts, he said "Every able bodied man needs to own a gun." The Militia had nothing to do with it. It wasn't an option. You had to pay for it yourself, an assumption, since everyone had guns and not for hunting.
The government isn't even supposed to know or inquire who has a gun, or canon, or machine gun, unless mentally compromised, since the second amendment says "Arms" not guns. Most of the founding fathers had canon on their property and they weren't in the Militia. The 2A protects 1A, and to prove the founding fathers allowed any normal human being to own canon, rifles, even machine guns (invented in 1722), the Letters of Marque and Apprisal in the Constitution, allowed private ship owners to carry guns and canon; anyone that had a ship could carry "ARMS"
Until you people understand 'the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it" Jer 17, you will continue to take away liberty from others. Arms are not the problem, sinful man is.
4
Yes in case u are saying that the Constitution is outdated including the Electoral College.
1
"Second Amendment ... has [been so twisted &] misused that you have to see it now as the second original sin in the founding of this country, after slavery."
I thought what America did to the Native Americans was the worst sin. The second was what was done to Mexican Americans during the Great Depression driving about 2 million Mexican Americans including 1.2 million US citizens, many of whom were US born, back to Mexico. Sadder still is that most Americans don't know about this, whereas, almost all know & are ashamed of the Japanese internment during WWII. Japanese Americans, unlike Mexican & Chinese Americans have been way high in the totem pole.
True, the second amendment needs to be "fixed" without fear of losing legitimate gun rights. With the Las Vegas massacre definite signs of progress are being seen. We may think, nothing happened after Newtown in Dec 2012. Actually today's development was primed by the collective agony of Newtown.
We can be assured, I think, the horrific gun issue will be solved, eventually, more like issues of gay marriage, Slavery, Jim Crow, etc.
Some say the Trump presidency is a (hyper)-reaction to Obama presidency. Because Donald Trump is such a shame that many whites who voted for Barack Obama & then regretted will feel they did indeed the right thing.
1
Should be an easy matter then to just repeal the second amendment. BTW anti slavery northern delegates wanted slaves NOT to count for apportionment. It was southerners who wanted them certified 100% to increase their congressional margins They compromised on 60%
1
No laws were passed to allow “Bump Stocks” to be sold to the public.
Some US government administration bureaucrat made that decision, acting for that President at the time.
Was there any Pay to Play? Campaign Contribution? Cash in a paper sack? Foundation Contribution?
Which Presidential Administration created the rule that “Bump Stocks” that convert semi-automatic weapons into “simulated” Automatic firing weapons were not in violation of the various US laws prohibiting the private ownership of Automatic firing weapons (machine guns, like tommy guns)?
Was it Trump, Obama, Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan?
1
"But we’re no longer a healthy democracy, thanks to the cancer that has grown out of the Constitution."
We are no longer a democracy period thanks to the cancer that is the republican party. There may be a couple of rural democrats who vote in lock step with the terrorist organization know as the NRA, but the meat of the problem is the republican party and their absolute reliance on southern and yahoo voters to get their majority.
We will see whether We the People have the will to take back our democracy next year and put republicans back into the minority status they so richly deserve. But with the epidemic of stupid that is currently sweeping the Nation I am not overly optimistic.
The only reason I can see for la la Pierre's pass on hampering the bump stock ban is that they are not made by the major gun manufacturer, what's his name? Feinstein? If there is chance of losing money by doing the right thing it is not going to happen here.
2
Is it just me or do all liberals argue from anecdotal evidence or episodic cases that no one could conceive laws to prevent?
3
It's also a no-brainer to ban the sale of assault weapons. Of what possible use are they to anyone, other than violent, murderous individuals intent on killing other human beings, children, night clubbers, concert goers, people out for a stroll?
These kind of terror instruments didn't exist at the the constitution was written. The interpretation of the second amendment by the gun nuts and the increasingly foolish Supreme Court is disgraceful and a danger to peaceable citizens.
8
Given the way things are going, it will not be long until the NRA defines rocket-launched grenades, surface-to-air missiles and thermonuclear devices as "arms" which the average person has a right to "bear". We can require that automakers install seat belts and airbags, and we can take away the right to drive, but don't touch that ability to kill one another!
4
If you are a liberal, progressive Democrat please take a deep breath, count to ten and check your pulse. I'm a liberal, progressive Democrat too and I support every reasonable effort to reform our gun laws. I want to play smart and I want to win by enacting simple and effective reform measures.
That begins with bump fire gun stocks. Let's outlaw them immediately.
With all the hyperventilating there is one thing you ought to know and consider carefully about bump fire gun stocks. The bump fire gun stock is a patented invention. Slide Fire Solutions, Inc. owns US PATENT 8,127,658 B1, a long list of patents listed at:
http://www.slidefire.com/patent
In my opinion taking the bump fire stock off the market ought to be followed by reforming the patent laws to prevent the patenting any firearm of any type and limiting the patents on firearm accessories to devices that prevent the unauthorized use or unintended firing of the weapon. That would do a great deal to discourage the manufacture and sale of firearms.
3
I'll put limits on my rights when journalists are willing to have limits put on theirs.
3
Excellent article that correctly puts in perspective the anachronism of the second amendment and the impossibility of seeing the future, i.e., the writers of the Constitution had no way of imagining what technological development would be a few centuries into their future.
I would add that it is not "just" the NRA and their money that make it impossible to extirpate this cancer. Bullying and intimidation carried out daily by the kind of people who display the bumper stickers shown in the photo plays a huge role, even if they are certainly not a majority of this country. But they have a deep inferiority complex, rooted in their ignorance and their intellectual laziness. And, as shown by the fact that they can only feel safe if they carry a gun and advertise that they do, they are cowards. Cowards with an inferiority complex tend to be bullies. The Bully in Chief is a faithful reflection of this deplorable segment of the population.
7
Those that oppose any restrictions on guns, ammo and any and all gun accessories always say that people kill people (not guns) and that mental health is the real problem. All western democracies have mental health issues, but they DONT have gun massacres on a steady basis....only the United States has this distinction. Spare us the mental health excuse and the pathetic and twisted reading of the 2nd Amendment which has been framed and enshrined by the gun lobby in order to maximize profit.
9
The idea of “at the time” is what makes applying the Constitution difficult in so many spheres.
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with private gun ownership anyway.
1
Another question to consider: Why do we live in a society where killing people seems like such a good answer? That question can be taken across the board -- whether criminals, people under arrest, people who are sick, Islamic terrorists, yes, even unborn fetuses. We just aren't big enough, or exceptional enough, to actually deal with problems.
1
This is the best article I've read in terms of saying the gun rights people's arguments and interpretation of the second amendment are nonsense. THANK YOU.
As for solutions: if people are so confident they can handle a lethal device, they should have no problem having that device registered, being responsible for its use, and going to jail when it is used to kill someone. With freedom comes responsibility. Time for gun lovers to stop whining and man-up.
9
In fact, both sides of the Whiskey Rebellion benefited from the right to bear arms. You missed the significance of this event to a discussion of the second amendment by half.
The author makes a lot of sense. We really do not need a society where law and order is maintained by individuals with guns. But his attack of the problem I think fails to recognize one fundamental fact: whether it is people in rural Pennsylvania, or AL, SC, or TX or WY, among those folks, the right to own a gun is as fundamental as the right to own a house. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. An armed and alert citizenry is a good thing if ever tyranny from the Federal Govt should arise. It would be harder for it to herd us all into railroad cars. I know - that Federal abuse sounds so extremist, so impossible, so uneducated...but it happened in civilized Germany in the middle of the twentieth century.
1
Those that repeat ad nauseum that guns don't kill people..people kill people and that the real issue is not guns but mental health are just wrong and ignorant of the facts. All western democracies have mental health issues, but the United States is the ONLY country that has gun massacres and mass shootings whose numbers are off the charts. That is not because of mental health.
3
Baloney, from beginning to end.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were structured to protect the citizens from an oppressive government.
That Egan would choose oppression as his first choice, speaks volumes about his lack of understanding of the fundamental underlying principles of the Constitution.
2
Exacly right about the historical context of the 2nd Amendment. In addition, the Constitution itself was in no small way a product of Shays' Rebellion, which began in 1786. The Framers had a pretty good idea of what might happen if the new country had unregulated militias around. Iroinically, many of the soldiers of the Continental Army and the militias had obtained their firearms from the Army, since may joined with either no firearms or with weaponry such as fowling guns or other hunting armaments that were deemed unreliable in battle. During the Revolution Washington himself had to calm a nascent armed insurrection among the troops. The deliberate and unintentional ignorance of the historical context of the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution has helped make this problem worse; the guilt is widespread, from the ordinary citizen to the SCOTUS.
1
American democracy is plagued by a number of ills related to the US Constitution, all of which stem from the same foundational problem: the Constitution is too hard to amend. The founding fathers never intended for the Constitution to be a static, scriptural document; that is why they included in it procedures for its modification. Unfortunately they did not anticipate how poorly those procedures for amendment would function after the country had grown to encompass fifty disparate states and more than 300 million citizens all of whom would be granted the right to vote.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not the Supreme Court's decision in Heller was the right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (I would argue that it was not), a well-functioning constitutional democracy would be able to resolve the controversy with an amendment both to clarify the constitution's position and to bring it up to date with changes in society and technology.
The fact that it is frankly impossible for anyone to modify the Constitution's statement regarding guns (or anything else) is the real cancer at the document's core, and the problems that spin off of this failing are only going to get worse.
3
Gun control is like abortion. Both are life-and-death issues where right and left have polar opposite goals. Normally that would result in compromise over the years as each side's power waxes and wanes.
But federal courts have taken power over these issues, and courts cannot legislate or compromise. Our federal courts are an aristocracy, with men and women who are appointed for life, sit on thrones, dress in robes, demand to be addressed as "Your Honor", and have power beyond political control and above anyone actually elected by the people. Judges are the last people who should be deciding these issues.
So of course conservatives will fear that any restrictions on guns will lead to a complete ban on gun ownership. So of course liberals will fear that any restrictions on abortions will lead to a complete ban on abortions. When the courts are the ultimate deciders of these issues, their decisions are beyond control of the people.
That led to many voters in the last presidential election voting not on what they thought of the candidates' policies, but on who the candidates would appoint to the Supreme Court. How farcical is that?
Better to make these deeply political issues political again. Not judicial. The Constitution was meant to be a structural document, not a substantive one. Return it to its original purpose if you want to remove the cancer in the Constitution. Let the courts decide cases, not make law.
3
How about with rights come responsibilities?
Thanks to the NRA and about 100% of the GOP, in the 21st century, we the people have the right to be shot en masse by any deranged, overly armed, paranoid individual with a grudge, who is clinically depressed, wants attention, lives in a fantasy world, hates the government, or is a loner.
This murderer has the right to buy almost any kind of gun, openly carry it in public spaces or in daycare centers, bars, and churches in a number of states, etc., but the rest of us--whether adults or children--clearly have no right to safety in our gun-oriented, wild west culture.
So now that killers have the right to buy, own, and use guns, let's work on identifying the legal and ethical responsibilities that come with purchasing, collecting, and firing guns. There are limits to everything, and we in the U.S. have way exceeded common sense in our approach to guns.
We regulate the driving of cars and trucks which are dangerous, why not guns?
So we are somewhat safe when it comes to the use of motor vehicles--that is until some lobbying organization becomes big and powerful and demands that we no longer have any requirements to drive a car, and that any individual has the "right" to remove the brakes and steering wheels off his/her car and may travel at any speed on either side of the highway if so desired.
Once common sense and responsibility are removed from the the political equation, the odds of human survival go way down. Stupid
9
I think efforts to repeal the 2nd amendment should be linked with an amendment to get rid of the electoral college. I'll bet they'd both pass with roughly equal enthusiasm.
Complete liberal idiocy. The Second Amendment was designed so that the government would not be able to disarm the people and prevent them from protecting themselves. That includes making sure that the government does not have access to arms that you cannot get.
If there is a cancer present at all , it is in the American people, not the Founding documents. Its not the advancement in weaponry that the forefathers did not anticipate, but the abdication of general self reliance to the government under the premise that they can protect you better than you can protect yourself.
The instances you cite as evidence that there should be more restrictions on the ability and right for law abiding citizens to protect themselves are actually proof positive that the government CANNOT protect you better than you can protect yourself. In fact, the places with the tightest restrictions, like Chicago, provide the most glaring proof of the government's incompetence in that area.
These incidents are tragic, yes. But they are happening more frequently because as a nation we are taking less personal responsibility for our own safety and that of our families.
3
It seems that interpretations of what our forefathers intended have taken a nosedive. It is because the assorted lobby's and their salesmen have the final word, not the people of this country. Things are driven by money, not policy or what is best for the people.
Even the power of the vote seems diminished.
I would hope that things may be done by referendum some day on the important issues like gun control. If even N.R.A. members are for it to some degree then those standing in the way with enough money to block things will always win. If a voting referendum could sway policies that are killing us that may help construct sanity in could sway policies that are killing us that may help construct sanity into gun laws.
I may be naive but I am at my wit's end trying to understand how a supposedly smart country can fall into the trap set by organizations like the N.R.A. without any valid factual information upon which their claims are made.
As far as cancers go, it takes everything away from you and kills you slowly.
4
The founding fathers could not have imagined that a single individual could kill 58 people in 10 minutes. If we want to be originalists, why would they have originally meant anything more than single shot black powder muskets and pistols. The largest weapons and most destructive weapons of the day, cannons, required a gun crew to operate and would not have been considered for individual ownership. What happened in Vegas was beyond their imagination. The Boston Massacre resulted in 5 deaths from many trained British Infantrymen. Such a civilian body count outside of a battlefield would baffle them.
We have set limits before, knowing that new developments in weapons exceed the second amendment's reach, such as the ban on machine guns and sawed off shotguns during the 30's gangster era. While these crimes were rare, they were lethal, shocking, and the public wanted them stopped. We can't stop all shootings by banning assault weapons, but three of the top four deadliest have been carried out with them (Orlando, Las Vegas and Sandy Hook). Virginia Tech was terrible, but an outliner, as most pistol and shotgun armed mass shootings have resulted in around 10 people killed, not 50+. We can reduce the carnage.
The Heller case leaves pretty much everything but handguns for home defense open, lets hope we can finally get something done in that space left by the court.
3
The problem with the 2nd amendment is people read it like the bible. They put their own spin on it to serve their needs. Unfortunately, our society is so ridden with hatefulness, those needs dictate people take their hate out in a violent manner. Trump is a continuation of this media driven hatred.
1
Who cares what the constitution says? It's man made document that can be amended. It's not a sacred text. There is no god given right to own guns guns. Repeal the second amendment.
2
If Bret Stephens and Tim Egan are right about the sentiments of the public, then repeal the Second Amendment. That won't happen, though, because the people today still want the right to protect themselves with guns, though they would and do accept restrictions on dangerous people owning guns, and on things like automatic weapons and bump stock analogues because they are by design meant to cause mass havoc, not targeted protection.
1
I'm a big believer in gun control-indeed, if it were up to me, almost no one would be allowed to have any gun of any sort. But I think you have a lot of this wrong. David Brooks has a column today that I believe gets much closer to the truth. The main issue preventing any form of gun control is that a large population of people see gun ownership as a proxy war between the right and the left. They are concerned that any form of gun regulation no matter how small will ultimately culminate in having their guns being taken away. It isn't necessarily logical or sensible, but it is how they feel, and they feel strongly about this. It isn't the gun lobby that is preventing gun control, or even the second amendment for that matter. It's these people who feel their values are under attack and see gun ownership as a bulwark against this attack, and a symbol of their values. I agree with David Brooks on this: we aren't going to have any meaningful gun control until we can heal the divide between the right and the left.
6
You left out the remainder of the 2nd Amendment: "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Period, as they say.
The first part of the amendment quoted is only an explainer, not a qualifier. But it does, as noted, enlighten us as to the framers' thinking. And that points to an unrestricted right to keep and bear types of arms that should include the type of general-issue weapons used in the military -- fully automatic AR-style rifles and semi-automatic sidearms. This would allow for widespread experience with such weapons in the populace so the government, as needed, can call upon them to serve in militias.
That was the clear intention. You can argue with it. That's fine. But laws restricting access to arms up to and including those described above are clearly unconstitutional, regardless of what the supremes may say. The only real remedy is another constitutional amendment.
7
It sounds like you are saying there is nothing to talk about or do to make people safe from getting gunned down, other than another amendment that would take years and years if at all. We are to remain sitting ducks when out in public and are not allowed to come up with a way to protect ourselves besides carrying guns? Many countries started where we are now, but were able to figure it out and lower the killing. We should be able to do the same and not be so closed minded to any solutions or discussions. Taking the view of "The law in the law" is not acceptable in the circumstances we are facing.
4
The first part of the amendment quoted is only an explainer, not a qualifier. But it does, as noted, enlighten us as to the framers' thinking. And that points to an unrestricted right to keep and bear types of arms that should include the type of general-issue weapons used in the military -- fully automatic AR-style rifles and semi-automatic sidearms.
=====================
This point is shown in two ways.
First, the very first legislation that Congress undertook to address the militia were the Militia Acts of 1792. In it, citizens were required to come to duty bringing their privately owned long guns, pistols, bayonets, swords and horses (in the case of cavalry). Moreover, the law prevented the legal attachment of these privately owned items in lawsuits or for collection of debt or taxes.
Second, the Constitution in Article I Section 8, states that Congress will be responsible for the issuance of letters of marque and reprisal. Letters of marque were essentially licenses or commissions for private ship owners to conduct what would otherwise be piracy against designated county's shipping. Congress issued many of these in the War of 1812.
Letters of marque assumed and in reality showed, that private citizens would own their own warships, the most sophisticated and powerful weapon systems of their day.
1
The writer demonstrates the failure of American Civics Education in the past 40 years in his broadbrush description of what the Constitution says. First, the document does not define an entire race as 3/5 people. It states that for the purposes of census the enslaved population would be counted that way. Free blacks (and contrary to current perception there was a significant population of them) were counted as whole people. And then there were the Indians (oops Native Americans) who weren't counted at all. Secondly, and more germane to the thrust of the article, the opening clause is not the most important part of the Amendment. Given that the Bill of Rights exists as a set of amendments it is crucial that you understand why that is the case. Many of those at the convention feared that any "right" enumerated in the document would eventually become construed as a grant from the state, and anything granted by the state can be taken away by the state. So in the wrangling over those rights regarded as unalienable to any American, the wording of the amendments becomes clear. They are limits on the government, not grants to the governed. Therefore, the most important clause in the Second Amendment is the last "shall not be infringed". All the amendments are written in this manner, so you can't pick and chose your 1st Amendment rights without recognizing the same applies to the Second.
5
The trouble with rules, laws and advisories are that they are always perceived as being directed toward someone else: The 'slow-down-bend-ahead' means someone else, my car can handle it - until it can't; Tossing your garbage out the car window on a freeway because, "Someone will pick it up"; Or, "My dog doesn't bark", except when they're not home, when it becomes, "Dogs bark. That's what they do. Wear earplugs." (I'm listening to one right now, been barking for a hour!); "Oh, but I'm not mentally unstable or angry, I should be able to have as many guns as I want."... Ever lived next to four dogs barking like a jackhammer, taking turns, with police too lazy or impotent to do anything, that'll make you close to insane within an hour and pretty darn angry...and then the missus comes home to say she's been having an affair with your best friend for years and is leaving you. Good time to have a gun in the home, right? Gotta love the complacency of that 2nd Amendment.
2
Our lawmakers who deliberately refuse to take actions that will significantly increase public safety where gun ownership and use are concerned are aiding and abetting, are complicit with the Las Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook and other murderers. They provide the getaway car for future killers. The perversion of the Second Amendment to satisfy our gun ownership free for all through linguistic manipulation, exaggeration and selfishness will continue, even after family members and friends of unfettered gun ownership are slaughtered. If the shooter in Las Vegas is thought to be mentally unsound, what does it say about those who argue that the Founders wrote the very short Second Amendment to permit gun ownership and use of every kind (or nearly every kind) imaginable?
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
1
At the time of the revolution, all able-bodied men were considered to be the state militia, to be called out to defend the communities against attack. But if you are so concerned about fun safety, replace gender identity classes with one on fire arm safety.
1
The founders had many intents. The sudden browning of this country was also definitely not one of them.
If you're going to be an originalist, own it.
4
It's a bad sign when the first sentence of a column gets history wrong. The country's original sin was slavery, but the Constitutional provision counting a slave as three-fifths of a person was a compromise aimed at limiting the future of slavery. The slave states wanted slaves counted as full persons. This would have increased their power in the House of Representatives. The non-slave states wanted slaves counted as less than full persons so as to limit the power of the slave states.
5
Another simple minded article by a formula repeating political operative who doesn't think past the agreed upon "talking points".
Going after guns is treating the symptoms but not the underlying disease process. Why do people want to kill so many?
Who cares what a media entertainer like Bill O'Reilly says? Has he even ever worked in government, written laws for a foundation of a government?
The second amendment is a listing of rights, just like the first amendment. There is the necessity of a well regulated militia and there is the separate, but related, right of the people to be individually armed. Just as in the first amendment there is the right to freedom of speech and the separate, but related, right of peaceable assembly.
We already have laws to keep lunatics and terrorists from committing mass murder. That is what the cited passages of the Heller decision refer to, laws currently in effect. Read it again, closely.
Cars and trucks are used to kill mass numbers of people, so are chemicals like home brew nerve gas, as are knives and bombs. Take away our cars and insecticides because these too have been perverted and used to kill mass numbers.
What is the purpose of the second amendment anyway? An armed civilian population is a deterrent, just like our nuclear arsenal. You bomb us, we'll bomb you. Both Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King carried guns. Why?
2
I hadn't realized the full weight of the intro phrase until I spent some time reading colonial history, including Francis Parkman's tome "The Pontiac Rebellion," which occurred right after the close of the Thirty Years (French & Indian) War. With no standing army, with just a few Brit officers in the colonies, any conflict required the fielding of citizen-soldiers as a militia under the command of professional officers.
The typical arrangement was for the individual colonies' legislative bodies to appropriate funds for the volunteers' pay, with each soldier providing his own gear, firearm(s), and ammunition. To have any kind of viable force for responding to a military threat, the locals had to be able to have their own firearms ... thus the need for the 2nd.
So it's arguable that in a nation with a standing army, not relying on militias at all any more, No. 2 has no modern application at all.
4
Except that the individual "free States", not the federal government, have the power to decide what form and who will be in the "Militia" referenced in the Second Amendment. So, Oklahoma, for example, could define its state "Militia" as being made up of every single resident in the state between the age of 18 and 90, prescribe that each such "Militia" member was authorized to own and bear firearms (subject to whatever restrictions the State of Oklahoma might choose to enumerate which did not violate an individual's right to bear arms, per the Fourteenth Amendment), and the federal government would be powerless to contradict the State of Oklahoma due to the limitation the Second Amendment imposes on the federal government to affect gun ownership in Oklahoma. In those states which which do not have state militias, the Fourteenth Amendment would prevent the states from imposing restrictions on individual ownership of weapons, as has been so ruled in the Heller (unconstitutional D.C. restrictions) and McDonald (unconstitutional Illinois restrictions) decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
2
In the military, "well regulated" means keeping your weapon in the Provost Marshall armory. One checks it our for practice. Read the sign at the entrance to any military reservation. The only people walking around "under arms" are people with military orders to do so.
4
The cancer in our government is that the will of the people no longer matters. The federal government is no longer accountable to the voters. There are many reasons for this, including gerrymandering, money, political polarization. But most fundamentally, politicians place party, and staying in power, above serving the common good. Republicans in particular have lost sight of the fact that there is such a thing.
A proposed Federal Accountability Amendment (see FB and Google) makes changes to the Constitution that will restore balance and return power to the citizens, through changes in the way Congress works, the Supreme Court is appointed, and ultimately the power to recall, via national referendum, certain national leaders.
5
"But it’s not the price of freedom in Canada or Japan or England"
No, their "price of freedom" involves the loss of other rights we hold dear. In England using anything (like pepper spray, a bat, or anything else) to defend yourself will get you charged. You also do not have the extensive rights we have if you are charged.
In Japan you will have to permit the police to compile and update a file on you, allow them to visit and insect your house whenever they want, give up the rights we have if you are charged with a crime here, too.
Do not fall into the trap of thinking that ANY country's citizens have all of the protected rights (free speech, no state religion, rights to privacy, criminal proceedings rights, etc.) that US citizens have because of our Constitution. When you have freedom of action, and the right to keep the government from snooping into your personal business, you have to accept that some folks will misuse the latitude. Try and take it away and you take it away for everyone - not just the "selected few", but all lawful citizens that wouldn't misuse them anyway.
You want to "fix" this? Get rid of the new "salad bowl" paradigm of American society where everyone is something else first and an American second, and go back to the "melting pot" paradigm where everyone is an American first and whatever ethnicity second.
3
Thoughts:
Assault weapons are called just that for a reason. Assault weapons are NOT called defense weapons or protection weapons.
It should be remembered that Ronald Reagan fully supported The Brady Bill and signed a 15 day waiting period for hand gun purchases while CA governor.
As the late judge and conservative legalist Robert Bork said of the Second Amendment:
-(1989) “(It) guarantees the right of states to form militias, not for individuals to bear arms.”
-(1991): “The National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is people’s right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks that it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets. But that’s not the original understanding.”
-(1997): “The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.”
Conservatism in general, and the Republican Party in particular, is held hostage by a reactionary minority of narrow interests.
Elections have consequences and, generally, you get what you vote for...
6
What I think is missing in some of the debate is that nothing about the gun debate stands on its own. Consequences of change in society are myriad and we need to look at this as an integrated process. But, ultimately, the sheer number of guns has probably been the major impact on gun deaths.
Unless mitigating processes are put in place, the growth in numbers will (actually, has) inevitably lead to unwanted results. So, many of the suggestions that do not rely on confiscating weapons (which hardly anyone proposes) should be seriously and vigorously debated.
Nicholas Kristof just listed 9 of suggestions. There are more, such as required licensing, required training, waiting periods, etc. Most of these are in place for things like driving, many professions, and even marriage (in most states).
The status quo is simply unacceptable. I lived in Newton, CT, in the 70's, early 80's. To think something like the murder of 20 five & six year old children led the NRA to say the answer is more guns is just nuts. How has than worked out for us?
4
The increase in the sheer number of guns has not caused a corresponding increase in gun crime. A nationwide, federal background check as a condition of purchasing a firearm started in 1993 under the Brady Law. In 1998, the so-called instant background check system--NICS--was put in place by the FBI (some states and cities have their own, separate background check protocols). Gun crime rates began dropping noticeably in 1993, from 7.0 gun homicides per 100,000 to 3.6 gun homicides in 2013. Yet, over that period anywhere from 6 million guns to 22 million guns per year were sold to the public based on proxy numbers from the NICS checks disclosed by the FBI. Calendar year 2013 broke all preexisting records for gun sales, as it was the year following the Sandy Hook school massacre. Non-fatal gun crime (such as robberies) dropped even more over the period of time described, from 725 per 100,000 in 1993 to 175 per 100,000 in 2013.
The drop in gun crime plateaued, so to speak, in 2014. In 2015 and 2016 gun crime went back up from the 2014 levels by a combined 22%--although a lot of that gun crime increase is due to crime centered in cities such as Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit and Birmingham, and was not spread out evenly across the country. The cause for such increase is not clear (less aggressive policing?). Whether the statistical increase in gun crime continues in 2017 and years thereafter obviously remains to be seen.
But, ultimately, the sheer number of guns has probably been the major impact on gun deaths.
Unless mitigating processes are put in place, the growth in numbers will (actually, has) inevitably lead to unwanted results
====================
Empirical data shows you are completely incorrect.
Since the early 1990s the number of guns in private hands in the US has doubled, while the gun homicide rate has been cut in half.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-sinc...
Repeal the 2nd.
6
The second amendment isn't going anywhere.
We ALL know this, why continue with these silly articles?
1
Complicit as well THE MEDIA (violence)
Sports (most)
Disfuctional Families and the list goes on!
Then you have the So called Leader of the Country
Who is supposed to be a Roll Model , Prisons that are Jammed Full !
And you end up with a toilet that won’t flush to get rid of so much JUNK
I have an idea. We divide the country in half. Everyone who wants to own a gun lives on one side, and the rest of us dwell on the other. Of course, that would segregate about 80% of men over there, but then that's their problem. They could come visit, but would have to check the guns at the door, like in a hospital.
No guns whatsoever would be allowed in the gun-free zone. And we would just sit and watch while all the idiots shot each other up. Let them eat cake.
4
As an owner of multiple guns and avid hunter, the time has come for gun control but first I want to see an aggressive approach to removing guns from criminals and confiscating illegal weapons. Passing laws to disarm law abiding citizens is OK but ineffectual unless and until we find a way to disarm everyone with a felony record, history of abusive behavior and anyone with even a whiff of mental illness. Then and only then does government have the right to disarm everyone else. These ideas will be anathema to civil libertarians but so be it.
There is simply no rationale for handguns or semi-automatic rifles. The best weapon for home defense is a shotgun not a handgun which is inaccurate in non expert hands.
First things first-disarm the dangers to public safety and then and only then will government have my support. And yes, gun technology has outgrown the second amendment. Despite the horrible death toll in Las Vegas, let us not forget that 58 dead is only 5% of the yearly homicide rate in Chicago which has stringent gun laws. Criminals don't obey laws and need extra special law enforcement. In our zealous approach to leniency for drug offenses, remember that drug dealers are armed and dangerous and drug users commit felonies way out of proportion to the general population.
Gun control calls for a studied approach not knee jerk legislation.
2
Glad you want legislation, but how do you propose to disarm criminals when they have such a ready supply of guns from straw purchase, burglaries from homes of careless owners, and those gun-show sellers who aren't technically gun dealers, so conveniently skip federal background checking the buyer?
Chicago has gun laws - so the products flow in from suburbs and a great deal from our friendly neighbors in Indiana, plus up from purchasers in the South.
So to disarm, you have to stop the supply.
1
Good points. First I would require background checks before ANY sale or transfer including gun shows. Second, I would impose drastic penalties for illegal possession and even more severe mandatory sentencing for the use of a firearm in commission of a felony. The supply is huge and as I stated, since there is no rationale for handguns, I would severely curtail their manufacture and possession. The bottom line, however, is that gun control requires more than just legislation.
1
Here is a totally cynical suggestion... We need to amend the Constitution's 2nd amendment. Specifically, we need to delete the "well regulated militia" clause since it is clearly a barrier to allowing every family to amass a arsenal. Watching the NRA argue against this amendment, and therefore in favor of a well regulated militia, would be interesting indeed.
1
I could not agree more with your comment that lawmakers have not kept up with advances in weaponry since the second amendment was written. Despite the impassioned, and well reasoned, article by Brett Stevens in the NYT a few days ago arguing that it is time to repeal the second amendment, I suspect Hell will freeze over first.
Perhaps a way around the impasse would be to have the State provide every adult who wants one with a black powder muzzle loader and have controls on owning and acquiring more lethal weapons such as are in place in the UK and Australia.
2
The phrase "the right of the people" occurs in the First, Second & Fourth Amendments. It means the same thing in all three.
1
The problem is the antiquated nature of the 2nd amendment and the inflexibility of its interpreters, and it wasn't primarily aimed at domestic insurrection. Standing armies were seen as a threat to liberty and the amendment enshrined a remedy, appropriate for that time, which attempted to provide security through freedom. Oddly enough, the amendment states its purpose explicitly: "the security of a free state." If the intent is a free state, what is the role guns have to play in this, what other institutions need to be read into the 2nd amendment which can guarantee a free state?
The selective interpretation of the Second Amendment is profitable for the gun-industry and many Republicans in Congress, but I also see how it is embraced by everyday Americans.
Ever since 9/11, our society has been engaged in an adrenalin-fueled frenzy. We are afraid, waiting for the next assault.
Popular television, book and movie scripts are full of graphic violence, corrupt officials and government agencies and diabolical motives for hurting innocent bystanders. If the stories didn’t have a ready audience, they wouldn’t be produced. The scenarios – like a steady dose of foreboding - seem to keep people braced for the unthinkable.
Small wonder half the people in the country deem it necessary to stock up on weapons to defend themselves. And there is no injecting common sense into the argument for gun control. Bring up facts about decent public servants or working government agencies, and you hear that all officials are corrupt, the government works against the average citizen, danger can come from anywhere, so each must act as his own militia.
In too many instances, these are the same people who say they wanted Trump to shake things up. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, they set the stage for the most senseless and terrifying drama our country has ever known.
2
Someone has called out the troops to enshrine and defend high-powered machines for killing a lot of people in a hurry, armor-piercing bullets, and silencers are extensions of 2nd amendment rights, in the shadow of senseless mass mayhem that killed 58 and injured over 500. This killing happened with guns that could and did shoot 9 bullets per *second*!!!
I am with those who think it impractical and unwise to try to repeal gun rights, though I'd just as soon be able to walk down the street without wondering who around me might have a fit of rage and shoot. I'd like to be able to get impatient with a dangerous or stupid driver without fearing revenge from someone who doesn't know what they did and wants to hurt me for attacking their "rights". I'd like not to fear that if someone doesn't win an election they will get their followers to create mayhem in the public sphere.
But I think it should be made illegal to own guns and bullets that are able to kill more than one person a minute. Life itself is at stake.
Here in Boston 40,000 people showed up to protest 40 violent "free speech" "defenders". That's the difference between violent free speech and threats in the name of free speech to our freedoms themselves.
The threat of death, which is inherent in the use of a gun, is not about your "freedoms". It is about protecting the innocent public from needless harm.
5
I believe Mr. Egan must have missed the fifth article of the US Constitution on his way to the 2nd Amendment. It's worth a read for those who feel the Constitution is "broken" or "obsolete." Maybe it is, but the answer to such defects is inside the document itself not in pretending the document means something other than what it states. Here's Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
There is only one way out of this insanity and that is for the voters of America to wake up and start acting like serious rational adults. We have to change our government. The people who run government right now are not people who represent a majority of Americans. They represent a narrow band of hooligans, radicals and nihilists who are more interested in blowing up the sytem rather than working within it. The voters in America need to start electing people to Congress that come there to do the business of governing, not people with a bunch of cultural and religious agendas who won't deal with anyoine unless they cavve into their pious, sanctimonious demands. Nothing will change as long as we keep electing these same kind of people over and over.
2
Gee, I have a different perspective....that "narrow band of hooligans, radicals and nihilists who are more interested in blowing up the system rather than working within it."... perfectly describe the Antifa and the anarchists I see on my TV screen when my side clashes with your side, but I am 68 years old, employed, pay lots of taxes, raised two children who are likewise employed taxpayers.
Get this though. I don't go to church and I omitted "under God" when I recited the Pledge of Allegiance as a child without whining about being micro aggression.
Careful about the stereotypes you paint with that broad brush.
Here we go again. Yesterday it was "Repeal the 2nd Amendment." Today it's "The 2nd Amendment is a Cancer." At least the Left is being honest now. Well, almost. We all know what they really want is confiscation. Most aren't openly calling for that.
Putting aside the wrongheadedness of repealing the 2nd Amendment for a moment, let's think it through. It gets repealed. States and localities start banning everything from full auto rifles to handguns. The feds start passing all kids of "sensible" regulation--from banning private sales, to banning people on the No Fly List from ownership. Does any of that solve the problem? Does it even make it better? Of course not. Criminals don't follow laws, and we can't outlaw psychos. As long as guns are manufactured, they will be used. If you pass a total ban on all civilian gun ownership, you'd still have to confiscate over 300,000,000 guns from the populace. Good luck with that. Short of that, what are we going to do? Sure, we can do things to make us feel better, like requiring background checks for private sales and making full auto weapons harder to get. But most shootings don't involve full autos. Regardless, the shooter would have passed and did pass background checks.
In the end, no "sensible" regulations get passed because they aren't going to fix anything, and most intelligent people realize it. It's not the NRA. It's reality.
2
Scott, since we should pass no laws because, gee, criminals break them, when can people start driving on the wrong side of the road? How about food safety laws? Soooo tedious complying, and it's not like people dying from tainted food weren't going to die anyway.
Saying laws aren't followed because of the exceptions is not a rational argument. By the way, just how many murders a year are there using the banned machine guns and sawed-off shotguns? Seems people follow laws more than you'd like to admit.
How much clearer could the phrase--"a well regulated militia,,,," be? One of the bones of contention during the Convention was about a "standing army". And yet those "originalist" justice just flat out ignore that but still use the originalist interpretation as their justification for their decisions. These justices act as if Jefferson and Madison and their takes on religion, corporations, etc never existed.
Only about only 1.5 percent of our population today has ever served in the military. We have been on a war footing for 16 years, yet how many of the gun lovers have joined the military. Gun owners are 5 times the number of licensed hunters.....
It is past time for a change but i am not very hopeful
4
The culture of American gun ownership is founded on the hope that they will be able to use their guns someday to murder someone they don't like or have a prejudice against. They aren't preparing for the possibility of defending themselves and their family. They are really, REALLY hoping that they get to kill someone, preferable someone who is a minority, or overly educated, or different from them in any way that offends them. They can't wait for that day. They. Can't. Wait.
3
I see TV media trying to stress the victims rather than inadvertently glorifying the murderer. In one segment, CNN went so far as to refuse to mention the killer's name. The rationale is to prevent copycat mass-murderers. With a lack of motive, so far, I am thinking, guessing, the Vegas killer was interested in status. He loved the status/perks gained in the Vegas hotels. Maybe that life proved empty, soulless, temporary, and he craved a certain perverted long-term status in the history books. No tweaking of our constitution will combat an insane individual's quest for notorious fame. We have a cultural problem that glorifies status of any kind. Our cultural definition of status needs to change. Now, it's too attached to fame, of any kind.
1
This argument would have been stronger without the offensive hyperbole. The second amendment is not equivalent to the constitution's tolerance of slavery- it was not drafted with the slightest malice and its supporters today are not malicious. The Tea Party is not akin the Whiskey Rebellion - indeed, the Tea Partiers were/are law abiding citizens who were denied their right to assemble and be heard by Lois Lerner and O'Bama's IRS, while the Whiskey Rebels were in actual rebellion, having taken up arms. (Washington was the first and last American president to actually lead troops in battle while in office, during the Whiskey Rebellion.) Maybe the second amendment permits further regulation of firearms, but not excessive regulation. That doesn't make it a cancer on the constitutuoon.
12
One false assertion after another. I agree only that the Second Amendment is not nearly as bad as slavery (and genocide) and that the column is a bit over the top.
Some Second Amendment "supporters" are malicious. They include the gun companies.
The Tea Partiers were never in the slightest denied their right to assemble (and even to disrupt Congressmen's constituent meetings) by anyone.
You think O'Bama was Irish! There appears to be something to that.
Mr. Egan you say, "A majority of Americans — indeed, a majority of gun owners — want laws to keep lunatics and terrorists from committing mass homicide."
Yes, WE THE PEOPLE must demand action from our lawmakers and elect socially conscious women and men who will pass a federal law that says:
EVERY gun in America must be registered on a national database, state licensed and fully insured for liability.
Let insurance companies pay for these mass shootings, and make the "bad guys with a gun" easier for law enforcement to find and the carnage will end.
Attention gun owners: WE do not want your guns. WE want your guns to stop killing us and our loved ones.
NOW is the time.
12
Many people ask how we would get every gun registered on a national database. Manufacturers track every single gun, every single bullet, every single accessory and every single part they make to track inventory and sales. They would simply have to provide the information to OUR United States Government or be held criminally liable.
We could develop an a Consumer Safety Bureau - much like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that Senator Elizabeth Warren and President Obama created - to hold the highly confidential information and law enforcement would still need warrants to access the database.
This would make it much easier for law enforcement to find "the bad guys with guns".
2
I've said it elsewhere and will say it again here. Access to "arms" cannot possibly mean any and all arms at any and all places since we have appropriately restricted access to things like hand grenades, handheld rocket launchers, claymore mines, etc, all of which could be used for "self defense". Using the exact same arguments supporting their restriction, it's not a stretch to limit access to high capacity magazines or semiautomatic rifles. To those that say limiting access will not reduce deaths since the bad guys will always find a way to get their hands on them, I ask how many deaths by claymore mines and hand grenades do we see annually? The ultimate goal of restriction is the elimination of their circulation in public. Less semiautomatic high capacity weapons in public by definition means fewer deaths by those weapons. Our only downfall is we have permitted their circulation for so long that it will take years to eliminate them.
5
I served in the U.S. Army for more than 30 years, two years active duty, and 28 in the National Guard. During every NG Annual Training period, our so called summer camp, every soldier was issued a weapon. We kept it close, guarded it well, then cleaned the gun and turned it back to the unit armorer after two weeks. It's ironic that we've reached a point in America where there is more supervision of weapons in the 'well regulated militia,' than among the citizens we were ordered to protect.
15
While arguments about gun control are unlikely to be resolved anytime soon they at least attempt to address what is in the Constitution. Of far more importance is what isn't in the Constitution. There is no way to address the fraudulent election that resulted in a corrupt incompetent with the power to affect this country for decades.
5
I'd love to see the terror watch list used to restrict people from buying weapons, but first it has to be clear how one gets on the list and one gets off it. It isn't and that's why it can't be used to deny a constitutional right.
"But it was also a no-brainer to restrict people on terrorism watch lists from buying guns,"
And men who have been accused of sexual harrassment. And liberals. And jerks. And anyone who has ever taken Zoloft. And queers, can't let queers have guns! And anyone who has ever been arrested for DUI. Drunks with guns? NOSIREEBOBBY.
This is not even a slippery slope. This is stupidity. We have due process for a reason. Everyone has done something that someone else thinks disqualifies him from gun ownership. I once lost my temper. Disarm me before I do it again.
I'm afraid the "terrorists on watchlists" thing spooks me. Maybe because I'm a Jew, and someday, all Jews may be put on a terrorist watch list just because. It's so American to pretend that bigotry is ok if you can rationalize it. What else shall we take away from people who some malicious troll has called a terrorist? Who pays for the lawyer to protect the so-called "due process rights" of those deprived of their guns? Can we really trust someone who's been screwed over by the government ever to have a gun again? Maybe having been denied a gun is a good reason to be denied a gun.
Stupidity. Absolute, mind-numbing, un-American stupidity. THAT'S THE CANCER.
You smug, arrogant elitist snob. I have a word for you calling the 2nd Amendment a "cancer": it's "obscenity". Let's see, we're supposed to undo a key amendment to the Constitution that the founders and patriots ever since have fought and bled for because why? Because you don't like it. Too bad! Get the required 2/3 majorities in the House and Senate and then get 3/4 of the states to ratify it. Otherwise, your opinion is just that: an opinion and one that is not shared by millions of proud, responsible American gun owners who have not and never will do anything illegal with their weapons. Too bad we can't say "proud and responsible" about you and a lot of your fellow opinion writers who would never consider any changes or limitations to the 1st amendment. Hypocrits all.
2
People are the cause; not guns, nor bombs, nor trucks, nor incendiaries. SCOTUS, in Heller, just affirmed the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to armed self defense and reaffirms the rights of citizens to bear arms to prevent tyranny. There's a Constitutional change procedure, but no popular support for eliminating the 2nd Amendment. Its not feasible.
One better alternative is to enforce the laws already on the books that restrict legal firearms. But that alternative presents a moral dilemma for progressives; the most egregious violators of gun law restrictions are urban black street gangs which commit most of US murders using illegally carried guns. And the urban black gangsta' is a favored victim of society's failings in the progressive narrative. Increasing the incarceration rate among that cohort is morally unacceptable to many readers here. Thus, the most controllable human factor in our national homicide rate can't be addressed.
Ideological shooter cabals are a small component of our homicide statistics, but we can's agree on a non-politicized way to develop a list for intervention that preserves due process rights. Random non-ideological shooters with mental disorders also represent a small portion of our homicide statistics, but still there is no agreement on how to define a bright line justifying intervention. Maybe we should put some hard time into clarifying policies that work fairly in these areas and drop the 2nd Amendment BS for a spell.
The cancer in America has little to do with the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Penalizing 99.99% to remedy a problem affecting .01% is not Democracy in action. It is Mob rule by reaction.
1
I feel that I'm being victimized by the vast numbers of unregulated guns in the country, so your count should say 99.99% minus one.
2
If you want to reasonably monitor, regulate and limit the continued expansion of available fire arms in our country, form an organization of five to ten million concerned citizens. (The NRA has somewhere under 5 million.) Get your members to pay membership dues. (The NRA typically charges $35/year.) Keep the demands measured, reasonable, not overarching. Ideally, your membership would be located in swing states with the power to decide presidential elections. The NRA draws power from the fact that it has a membership and those members are willing to follow the NRA's lead in how they vote.
Hand guns are the weapons of choice in urban, street warfare over drugs, money and sexual conflicts centered on who's cheating on whom. Though mass killings are horrid and shock everyone, far more people are killed in drug turf wars or because of gang rivalries.
2
Well ... except that you interpretation is - well - wrong and been rejected several times but the SCOTUS and the individual right to own guns is well supported by numerous sources historical documents contemporaneous to the time.
You rational youi beliefs, we can argue it should be otherwise but the original intention is not really in dispute.
Oh, yes it is still in dispute. Ignoring the "militia" phrase was an act of pure judicial malpractice and incompetence by the right-wing Supreme Court.
We have long gone past the point of shock - or even mild surprise - when another leftist makes false claims about the meaning of the Constitution or the nature of the American culture. Egan's ridiculous interpretation of the meaning of "well-regulated militia" has been debunked repeatedly and the right of individual's to own weapons for self-dense and other traditionally legal purposes (DC v. Heller; "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."]
What I am still shocked by is the callous disregard his type actually demonstrates for the victims of homicide by wasting time and effort on pointless details about gun ownership that will not change the homicide rate in the least. Nuts like Paddock are a mental health issue - not a gun issue - and they are not a significant part of our homicide problem.
The reality is that the problem in the US is that we have too many people willing to kill and they will find a way to kill even without guns - perhaps we could prompt Egan to recall that the worst mass killings in America were carried out with airplanes and box cutters and the next worst was done with fertilizer, fuel, and a van.
And we still have well regulated militia today. And the even have tanks and fighter jets. It's called the National Guard. Exactly what is described in the Federalist Papers. Can follow the Constitution and still be sane.
2
"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding."
- District of Columbia et al v Heller
When will it be understood that our sanctified constitution, like all religious, political, and scientific (yes) documents are necessarily time-sensitive?
They are composed and published for their times. Times change. So should documents. Period.
2
The NRA isn’t even the wealthiest lobby on The Hill. That’s a misnomer. What they have are dedicated cadres of virulent, hard core supporters that will button hole legislators in their offices and inundate their telephones with their message of no retreat from their misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment. If we want to beat them, I suggest we use tactics that are identical.
3
Timothy has demonstrated perfect hindsight 20/20. Duh.
"It is a no-brainer to ban bump stock". Yes, except that this is the first instance of mass shutting where bump stock was used.
"No brainer to ban people on the terrorist watch list". Except that lot of the people on terrorist watch list have committed no crime, and are not even aware that they ore on terrorist watch list. take away someone's right based on suspicion.
Majoritarianism is not equal to healthy democracy.
I'm afraid "the cancer" is not just from the Constitution, in fact it is not "original" at all. It is the encouragement people receive to blame others and hurt others and think reaching for the worst in themselves is OK.
When we do something we know is wrong, shame and embarrassment are a good thing. Yes, we need to accept ourselves as we are, but we also need encouragement to pick ourselves up and try to do better.
It's not exactly new, but the political exploitation of blamehatred, othering, money instead of value, taking instead of giving, killing as a solution to problems, expensive foreign wars that increase our foreign enemies, is a wildfire burning across our land, and is very far from the original intent of the Constitution. (I'm not OK with that 3/5ths, mind you!)
1
It was already stated in a well-written previous article in the Times, but it bears repeating. Hunting and self-defense is at least a plausible argument in terms of certain firearms, but the justification of military style weapons (AR-15s and such) as a way of protecting people from federal tyranny is on shaky ground. First, while a well-ordered militia may be able to mount SOME kind of defense against an army of trained soldiers, untrained, loosely-affiliated civilians cannot. A weapon does not a soldier OR militiaman make. With that in mind, I do not see why it would be inconsistent with a reading of Second Amendment to say that firearms designed for or mimicking military weapons can be owned only by someone who commits to membership in a state militia. Such a militia must have the usual hallmarks of a military organization including regular training, codes of conduct, identifying marks AND an inventory/accounting of weapons and ammunition of its members.
Secondly, as a practical matter (and as the previous Times article stated), no amount of stockpiled firearms is going to matter if the federal government decides to impose its will on a state. Organized militias or not, there is no military parity at all between the U.S. and any other group. Rule of law is the only hope in that regard.
1
A weapon does not a soldier make, but without a weapon, there will be no soldier against a modern army. Men brought their own rifles to the American Revolution. They weren't soldiers when they arrived but they became soldiers in time and under the tutelage of General von Steuben and others. Don't discount the difficulty of invading the US mainland given the armed civilian population. And don't assume that an oppressive government will be able to leverage a technological advantage to oppress millions of armed civilians waging a guerrilla resistance. Guns are an insurance policy we buy with the blood of innocents. Whether the coverage is worth the cost is a question for the voters. We can always amend the Constitution should the voters change their mind about the 2nd Amendment.
@Todd O.: I'm not disagreeing with your historical account, but the disparity in power between the British and American revolutionaries is not comparable to the disparity in power between civilians and the federal government in 2017. Also, while I concede there is no way to know for sure, I don't like the odds of an insurgency on U.S. soil.
First, if the U.S. is so far gone that open warfare has broken out against its citizens, you cannot really count on any restraints in its hunt for insurgents. Imagine Assad in control of the U.S. military and you get the picture.
Secondly, guerillas usually enjoy the advantages of knowing the terrain better than their enemy. But in your scenario, it's not a Vietnamese paddies, Iraqi deserts, Afghani mountains, Colombian jungles, etc. The government knows the terrain, population, language, customs and culture quite well. At best it's a tie, but ties don't work in favor of guerilla fighters.
Third, the supply, logistical and communications problems foreign guerillas depend on exploiting against an invader cannot really be used against the U.S. government on its own soil. By contrast, those stockpiles of ammunition would dwindle quickly for insurgents. Mass producing more would be impossible and attempting to raid government facilities would be suicidal.
I'd say the best defense of your rights in 2017 is to avoid, at all costs, giving control of the military to anyone who seems too unpredictable or prone to betraying allies.
enshrine an entire race of people as three-fifths of a human being.
This is a common misconception. The three-fifths clause in the constitution was a concession to the slave states that increased their population for calculating the representatives they sent to the House by 3/5s of their slave population. A better "liberal" result would have been to not count the slaves at all whereas a slave holder would have wished each slave to be counted as a whole person. Although this clause was effectively repealed by the Civil Rights Amendments, this perversity is probably the reason we have a electoral college rather than individual voting for President, and the reason Trump is in the White House.
"But it was also a no-brainer to restrict people on terrorism watch lists from buying guns..."
I completely disagree. How could you possibly advocate for a "solution" that has 4th amendment implications against due process (remember, you are advocating a law restricting a right I currently hold as a citizen of this country) based on suspicion. that list, while politically convenient, I mean who is FOR allowing terrorists to do anything? well, I'm also against regular criminals from doing anything. problem is that you don't know they are a criminal or a terrorist until they actually commit a crime, you catch them, then PROVE they are guilty. at least that's the way it is supposed to work in this country, at least until you get to "sensible" gun laws, then all logic goes out the window.... let's start using a list that is so secretive you have no idea how you got on it and no recourse to remove yourself from it. frankly that anyone offers this as a "sensible" measure for the basis of any law should be ashamed of themselves. and this very notion of contemplating virtually any means with which to restrict access to firearms... access enshrined in the 2nd amendment. what's that line from an old play/story (man for all seasons I think) that goes something along the lines of who will protect you from the devil when you have cut down all the laws in order to get at the one you are pursuing? also, please tell me (since you are invoking vegas) how it would have stopped it.
Any contractual agreement amended 33 times over 201 years requires rewriting and restatement. Documents don't "live;" rather they are written at a particular time and place according to the language of the day. Citizenship in the USA, individual rights, taxation, voting, the electoral college, federal vs. state governments, debt, education, the military, term limits, hate speech, protected classes, guns, militias, central bank, regulations, abortion, religion, marriage, and a host of other issues need to be modernized. How different would the debates be today than in the late 1700's?
1
"The price of freedom". As Mr. Egan notes the citizens of Britain, Canada, Japan, (and Australia) seem to believe that they are free. Since they face a risk of being shot which is a small fraction of an American's risk they have more than do we of the first freedom: the right to life.
Guns and our insane gun culture are now in fact the price of the fanaticism of a small minority, the pusillanimous Republican Party, and the failure of the majority to deal with this form of domestic terrorism.
4
In 1789 the militia was everyone subject to call to service and regulated meant equipped. It is the same meaning as "regular army". Americans were expecte to show up for duty, if called, equipped with their own weapons, weapons sutied to military use. The author rather seriously misunderstands the Heller decision.
They also were issued bullets when they arrived. They were not allowed to have bullets until then.
2
There's no question - ZERO - that the Second Amendment has been perverted to such an extent as to make it laughable, were it not so violently bloody and the cause of the carnage we face on a daily basis in this country. But it's not only the Second Amendment that is a "cancer" in the Constitution. The fact is that, after nearly 240 years of Independence, if we've arrived at a point in time where the current inhabitant of the White House is deemed qualified and a decent human being, then our system is an ABJECT FAILURE because nothing could be further from the truth. Our federal government and the unity of the various states are breaking apart at a rate faster than anyone could have imagined just a few years ago. The Justices who view the right to bear weapons of war as guaranteed by the Constitution have no right to our respect and deference to their judgments. THEY, together with the NRA and every person who values their guns more than their lives, represent the ANTITHESIS of everything decent that this country was supposed to represent. Fact is our laws are applied according to the whim of the majority, and history has shown many times that the tyranny of the majority results in the abolition of democratic ideals and freedoms all honorable people have come to cherish and take for granted.
3
It should be a no-brainer to ban guns holiong more than three bullets/shells. Hunters of ducks are limited to three shells in their gun, but we allow assault rifles with unlimited magazines. That is insanity. So called mass shooting are horrific, but more horrific is the every day carnage of one or two people killed in many different places.
1
There are several areas of intellectual dishonesty here:
"One of the great disconnects of our history is how a nation birthed on the premise that all men are created equal could enshrine an entire race of people as three-fifths of a human being."
This applied to representation for purposes of Census. If slaves counted as a whole person, it would nearly double representatives for the South during the Antebellum period.
"At this time, the typical fireams were single-loading muskets and flintlock pistols."
Yes, and the printing press and quill pens were the primary methods of communicating. This argument is hyperbolic: We could not communicate using the internet and computers back then, so the government has the right to outlaw them now? Can the government search cars, phones, and refrigerators now because the Fourth Amendment couldn't have considered these devices?
Someone writing a column for a newspaper has no right to say "The Framer's couldn't have possibly imagined such weapons of mass destruction!" I can share this article on Facebook, Twitter, in a YouTube video, on a personal blog, or in a myriad of other ways. I can spread this and other messages to literally millions. Recently we discovered Russians were buying ads to support Trump, ads reaching over ten million potential voters. Isn't the result of that just as devastating?
You need to be honest: You want to repeal the Second Amendment because guns scare you, even when owned by millions of law abiding citizens.
1
Citizens United needs to be reversed. All political donations need to be accounted for and attributed. No anonymous political contributions should be allowed, nor should super pacs be allowed. Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine did not say "rich men are created superior", they said "all men are created equal". The reason the NRA and the other lobbies control the Congress is unlimited, unregulated, anonymous campaign donations and smear campaigns.
1
Have radio , television and the internet made the First Amendment obsolete? The same reasoning applies. "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms":, no mention of militia here.
The second amendment may have been our third original sin (women's suffrage anyone?), but I don't think it rises to anywhere near the scale of the first two.
In a big way, however, the second amendment served the purpose of reinforcing slavery. I wonder if that isn't part of the reason that many of our southern countrymen still cleave so tightly to it. They don't seem nearly as vociferous when a black person's gun rights are infringed (Philando Castile).
Okay, maybe the fourth. I have a hard time putting it ahead of Native American genocide--although the 'right to bear arms' contributed to that sin as well.
Jim Crow, Chinese Exclusion, Japanese Internment, the A Bomb, wars of aggression against Mexico, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, and Iraq, and a huge carbon footprint escape consideration only because, coming later in time, they may not be 'original' sins.
I keep wondering how Scalia's interpretation of what he considered to be a "dead document" can be taken seriously. If the Constitution is dead and can only be interpreted when you assume time and conditions froze on the day it was written, isn't that an argument to scrap it and start over to recognize current conditions?
I am not seriously advocating a rewrite of the Constitution. Although I would consider tweaking that whole second amendment solutions thing so that Supreme Court justices no longer have to twist themselves into pretzels trying to justify it.
2
Fine column. Is like to point out that the word "militia" also appears in the Article 8, Section 1, Clause 15 as follows:
"The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions...."
The 2d Amendment should be read consistently with that the above "Calling Out Clause, " but I have never heard the argument made. This clause tells us what the "milita" is for: to repel foreign Invaders and put down domestic insurrections, not for the purpose of mowing down American citizens with machine guns.
This idea appears cuts heavily against the NRA position.
1
Egan has fallen into the usual trap of blaming a symbolic focal point (e.g. the second amendment, the NRA, the republican leaders in congress, etc.) for our perceived woes. The real focus needs to be on altering the predilections of the vast millions of our fellow citizens who are quite supportive of those problematic institutions.
Regulated militias are made up of armed citizens. You cannot have one without the other (even though militias are an anachronism). There can be no presumption about which comes first.
The Second Amendment says "keep and bear". It's only a matter of time until open and concealed carry laws around the nation are challenged in the Supreme Court.
I personally do not believe that a requirement for universal background checks and pre-purchase training and certifications blocks the majority of citizens from exercising their right to own a gun. I'd be happy if they just kept the things locked in gunsafes when not in use.
Massively lethal hardware - which is what battlefield weapons are - should bring extra scrutiny. The unfortunate economics of gun manufacture is that the more you make, the cheaper each unit is. After 50 years in production, the AR-!5 receiver - the expensive part of any gun and the .223 Remington cartridge ("the ammo") are now produced in such numbers as to make this weapon the rifle of choice for most Americans. They are today's equivalent to a Winchester in the Wild West. How does a supposedly free society legislate them off the shelves?
No one NEEDS a 600hp car...Still plenty are sold every year.
The cancer of the Constitution is the belief that the document is timeless, set in stone, and infallible. This is a mindset that can claim that an 18th century 2nd amendment text, incorporating primitive weaponry technology, is still valid. As brilliant as the founders were, they were not omniscient or prescient. The cancer is taking old texts and applying them, word for word, to modern times. To do so assumes that the world is static. I’d like to think that the founders were wise enough to know that the Constitution was an organic document that would change with the times. Otherwise, it is vulnerable to exploitation which is what is happening in the gun debate.
Another angle to approach this is via how texts work. The consensus in semiotic circles is that any text is not static; its meaning changes. The words on the page are nothing but fragile metaphors that are subject to any number of variable interpretive codes (social, cultural, ideological, and textual) that imbue them with meaning. Texts do not exist in a vacuum but within the flow of history, their meaning subject in part to the social-historical forces of the time they were written. No text is original, but draws on all the texts written before it. The Constitution grew out of a myriad of sources including English law, and the Enlightenment. So - the meaning of any text is always socially negotiated. To hold a text like the Constitution inviolable is to mistake how language works, and is socially irresponsible.
4
Wow. Every time I read stuff like this I just want to fire your American History teacher. "A well regulated militia" may be the most misunderstood phrase in our constitution. So a little lesson is in order. When the Constitution was drafted, out founding fathers had just fought a war against an oppressive government (the English Monarchy). Our American military existed in 3 parts. First, the Continental Army - Paid, full time professional soldiers. Next, the Minutemen - Part time but fairly well trained soldiers that somewhat compares to our Army Reserve. They had basic training and went back periodically for additional training. They were call "Minutemen" because they could be called up to serve in the Army at a moments notice - like they were during the Whiskey Rebellion. The last part is the Militia - which was every other able bodied male over a certain age that could be called on in an emergency situation to defend their community from an imminent attack until the Army/Minutemen could arrive. These were everyday citizens who had little if any training beyond how to load and fire a musket safely and (somewhat) accurately. In order to avoid having a gigantic standing Army, they needed the citizens to be able to defend themselves to some extent. This "militia" is exactly who the framers were talking about (and had nothing to do with the Whiskey Rebellion). This is the group that they wanted to be armed.
Liberals have lost the power of introspection. If there were no guns how would the government change? One soldier of the government could hold life or death over a population. Was power does a government gain? How does this power corrupt? What are the worst case scenarios. How would Obama have acted differently with this power? How would it change Trump?
A nation built on self-government needs a citizenry exercising self-control and self-discipline, whether with guns or financial instruments. That's what we have lost. Teach your children well.
This argument is long on emotion, but short on legal rationale. As a result, it highlights the wisdom of the Founding Fathers:
Altering the Constitution, abridging freedom, must remain difficult, so that it is done carefully and only after great thought and debate. We the People must never allow our rights to be taken by fanatics who can't see past today. We the People must cherish and guard our birthright from mobs whipped into a frenzy by demagogues who care not one whit for our rights.
We the People must remember the wisdom of Ben Franklin:
Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
A quintessential example is found in recent history -- to wit: the Patriot Act. We the People were told such shameless lies that this abomination would make us safer, but not one verifiable law enforcement success can be traced to its provisions. However, much of our freedom was lost because of it.
Liberals are free to undertake the process of amending the Constitution. They are free to educate and galvanize the voters. They are free to use the legal processes available to them.
But what is the reality?
Right now, the Republicans are a single state house short of having enough power to amend the Constitution without a single Democrat vote. Hence, the fanatics who are so quick to sacrifice their birthright have a difficult task ahead of them. This circumstance is due, more than anything, to their irrational demands for "common sense" gun control.
Southern states were given credit for three-fifths of the slave population as an inducement to approve the Constitution. It was a gift to the slave holding states because it increased their representation in the House. By rights, none of the slave population should have been counted, as they had absolutely no rights, including, of course, the right to vote. They were barred by law from any sort of citizenship, but the South, nevertheless, was rewarded for its inhumane behavior.
1
Perhaps we need a different catch all phrase than Gun Control . . . as I read over some of the comments my thought was "but this is subsumed under "Gun Control"" at least in my mind . . . a broad gamut of necessary tools — regulation, training, certification, licensing, research, databases, education about the 2nd Amendment and education about what is needed . . .
The sainted Antonin Scalia claimed that the well-ordered militia part of the Second Amendment meant nothing. An originalist except when the actual words did not suit his bias. My sixth grade grammar teacher could spot a conditional clause when she saw one. Too bad he did not have Sister Teresita in his sixth grade. He also thought any weapon you can carry should be lawful, but I'll bet he drew a line on land-mines on the front lawn. The reason Scalia remains important is because so many conservatives look up to him as a principled jurist, and consider him a model supreme court justice.
Heller actually does keep the conversation of gun regulation open, and it is about time that part of the law be practiced in the halls of congress. But we all know that's not going to happen. I know one of my senators won't do anything. Why do those people want that job, but turn a deaf ear to the 88% of Americans who want meaningful gun regulation.
Our country is truly "exceptional". We have more guns, higher drug and health care costs, tax cuts that are primarily for the wealthy, a military bigger than the next 10 countries combined, and a current White House cabinet stocked with billionaires. These "exceptional" characteristics are the result of one thing: The money interests who have taken over our democracy. Timothy Egan is right..."We're no longer a healthy democracy."
I agree that the key word is militia. Back in 1776 all adult males were supposed to be prepared to defend the new republic. Hence the creation of the militia. Today we call this the National Guard. This militia has tanks and guns and anti riot gear to protect the people. I don't see gun advocates fighting for the right to have tanks and bazookas. The NRA has done a great job in frightening people into thinking that they are under attack at all times. That is ridiculous. Rifles used to hunt cannot kill hundreds of people There needs to be a gun registry so that people cannot stockpile weapons The Second Amendment should be a carefully regulated freedom, not a license to kill.
We armchair QB events like this thinking more laws and control will end it. Leave out the intent of the founders and how we should 'keep up' with the times on our laws. Whether you're religious or not or believe in God Almighty or not - thou shall not murder - is the original law written. Countless article like this avoid the main issue - man's sinful and depraved nature. Unless you round up and melt EVERY gun in the world, shooting will not stop. Murder will still happen, just under different means. It saddens me to heart Mr. Egan, a writer I respect, call the 2nd amendment at cancer in our constitution. Mr. Egan, the 2nd amendment is one of the few things, if not the only thing, keeping us from becoming a Venezuela or some other banana republic. I don't agree with cliche's that 'It's the price of freedom' either.
This 'cancer' has not caused the death of common sense in our congress. The inability of our government to actually govern is because of decades of gerrymandering from both sides - state houses to federal seats. You wind up with extremes from both and therefore no one can work; they only want to oppose each other.
as to the level of firepower I should have access to for the purpose of defending myself, it is reasonable to have at least equal firepower to that of a likely threat.. Am I likely to encounter a nuclear armed intruder, I doubt it.. Grenades ? likely not.. rocket launchers maybe ? I dont think so.. A semi automatic rifle or handgun with a high capacity magazine ? You betcha..
The whole escalating premise of his argument is false.. All one has to do is read some of the founders personal views of self protection to see what they were thinking.. We are armed citizens of states that could if necessary resist a tyrannical federal government..
Again I ask for a specific gun law that would prevent any of these recent mass shootings.. Again there will be silence..
If Las Vegas demonstrates anything it is that any apparently normal, law-abiding citizen could be the next mass murderer. Short of an outright sales ban there is no rational way to keep the weapons out of the hands the next shooter.
The sale of ammunition for military style weapons should be immediately banned - in deference to the second, the ban could be temporarily lifted in the event of a credible threat to the "... security of a free State".
Based upon Justice Scalia's philosophy that Constitutional provisions should be given their original meaning, "arms," as used in the Second Amendment, should be muskets, flintlock pistols, and other arms available at the time of the passage of the Second Amendment rather than what is available today. Did Scalia have a lapse?
We should be able to buy cannons and puckle guns, then. How about frigates and other naval ships loaded down with "arms?"
Yes, it's about a militia, not about handguns.
Yes, "it’s not the price of freedom in Canada or Japan or England." Or in Germany, where guns are licensed and insured like cars, where legitimate uses of guns are allowed. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-licensing-guns-20130428-s...
The First Amendment protects radio, television, and the internet from government interference, even though the Founders did not foresee any of those innovations in communication. Calling the Second Amendment a cancer implies that it must be destroyed or removed for the health of our nation. Please read Jeffrey Snyder's 1993, "A Nation of Cowards" (http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html): "Those who call for the repeal of the Second Amendment so that we can really begin controlling firearms betray a serious misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, such that its repeal would legitimately confer upon government the powers otherwise proscribed. The Bill of Rights is the list of the fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that define what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights which must exist to ensure that government governs only with the consent of the people. [...] The repeal of the Second Amendment would no more render the outlawing of firearms legitimate than the repeal of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would authorize the government to imprison and kill people at will. A government that abrogates any of the Bill of Rights, with or without majoritarian approval, forever acts illegitimately, becomes tyrannical, and loses the moral right to govern."
So, amend the Constitution. Stop with all the complaining and do something! Not one gun control advocate has attempted to convene a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution. Until someone does, it's just pointless complaining and zero action.
Tmothy Egan writes: "But it was also a no-brainer to restrict people on terrorism watch lists from buying guns, as was proposed after the Orlando slaughter of 49 people last year. It failed."
It did fail Timothy. We have the 5th Amendment right to due process here in America. That restriction on people on the watch list failed miserably at providing due process. The list is generated in secret by people with complete anonymity. You have no right to know you have been added to the list and will not know until you attempt to board an aircraft. Once you know you are on the list, it takes a ton of money and time to go through the courts to challenge your name being on the list. Who wants our Government to have the ability to arbitrarily deny a citizen's rights by this scheme? And...if you are OK with an anonymous person placing your name on a list which results in forfeiture of gun rights, would you also be OK with denial of other rights under this scenario?
We suffer many myths about our Constitution. Let's start with the first example in this column. It is not true that we ever, "enshrine[d] an entire race of people as three-fifths of a human being."
The question was how many seats in Congress would slave states get, and by extension how many electoral votes for President. Slave owners wanted to have extra, just because they owned slaves. They wanted an extra vote for slave owners for every slave owned. They only got 3/5 of that, which is still an outrage.
It was not "an entire race," just the slaves. Nobody imagined slaves would have any vote themselves, it was extra votes for slave owners.
The Second Amendment is similarly distorted. The Founding Fathers feared the government they were creating. They were not only concerned about citizens helping to defend against foreign threats, they were concerned the government here would become the threat. They wanted citizens to have real physical power to overthrow it, as they had just done themselves.
Of course in the present day firearms may not give that. Still, like in the Middle East from Iran to Egypt to Turkey, that would depend on just how many and how far citizens were willing to go, and how the military and police would come down in that confrontation. In those countries the police and Army refused to shoot down large numbers of their fellow citizens.
Do we need guns to ensure our power to overthrow the government? Would they even help?
7
Mark, I always appreciate your informed and well thought out words. For a primer on citizen uprising you should watch "Winter On Fire" which is a documentary detailing the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and the overthrow of the corrupt government there. The day before the government actually capitulated, Ukrainian police used snipers to kill a large number of protestors. That night, in the Maiden Square, a former Ukrainian soldier took the microphone away from some nonviolent types and said that he and his soldier brethren were coming back on the morrow, armed and ready to fight. Within hours the President fled the country and a democratic regime took his place.
This is the exact scenario the second amendment was written to for. The second amendment was not written for muskets it was written for equality between the government and it's citizenry. Currently it covers black guns, in the future... who knows?
That said, there is no reason for bump stocks and 60 round magazines. Moreover, there should be concerns raised after someone has two or more background checks for AR's. Those people should be watched and a different classification should be attributed to them which makes it extremely difficult to achieve.
2
Our democracy is hemoraging. We have anti government politicians in charge. They have no faith or stock in community, equality and the right to life. Greed has overrun our society which includes the manufacture and sale of guns. Will the last person left standing in the US please turn out the lights.
5
The first original sin was what US immigrants did to the Native, or First, Americans. The second slavery. Guns are only third.
5
Liberals miss the main point in the 2nd amendment. It is the retention of the power by the people to throw off the Government itself if it should lose its way as a Government of the People
@Dan - "Liberals miss the main point in the 2nd amendment. It is the retention of the power by the people to throw off the Government itself if it should lose its way as a Government of the People"
Actually I don't believe they miss the point - they don't AGREE with the point.
It comes with the assumption that liberals will always be in charge, and the current distress is because that assumption has been challenged.
@Dan: I don't think they are missing the point as much as saying the point has become most decidedly moot. If it comes to the point where the federal government becomes so tyrannical that our only hope is to defeat it in battle... it's over. It's not like the revolutionary war where both sides have similar capabilities (cannons, muskets, etc.). The modern U.S. military is a half-trillion dollar per year, cutting edge war machine and has been for some time. It arguably has no peer in terms of sheer firepower, resource and capabilities amongst other NATIONS, let alone civilian state militias. That's not spin or "truthful hyperbole." It's a fact.
I am not worried about it coming to that. For those who are, perhaps they should reconsider cheering every defense budget increase and military expenditure. Past leaders had opinions on that too. Madison warned against a standing army and always being on war footing. "Ike" warned of not letting the military-industrial complex run wild.
Good luck, if it ever happens. I think the military has many more weapons that the "militia" ever will. You'll lose the next civil war, too.
"If they did, then we should all have the right to portable nukes — for that is the logical conclusion of such an argument."
This is what I've often wondered. Why isn't the NRA opposed to personal owner of nuclear devices? I'm sure they'd be expensive, but if you have the money shouldn't you be able to buy one? I mean, isn't that the logical extension of the second amendment? Why do we let the gubbmint restrict our right to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? Just because some nut out there might actually use one, shouldn't restrict the rights of responsible nuclear device owners.
6
Wow, I love it when blue state urban dwellers admit to their hatred of the constitution and general lack of historical understanding. The right of a free people to keep and bear arms predates the constitution by at least 568 years, it was enshrined in the Magna Carta as a natural right of all men. And the bill of rights is what the government cannot do, not what it allows us to do. And you left out the most important part of the 2nd amendment the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, Shall not be infringed. The people that's us, not the government.
1
"But the intent is clear with the opening clause: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.'" By simple legalistic logic that intent should lead to legislation that provides that military-style weapons shall be available only to militias and their certifiably trained members. It should even allow that military weaponry shall be held only in militia facilities, not privately by its members.
Weaponry intended for hunting, or limited sporting or target use, or for sensible, adequate home and personal protection may be available, but only to trained, background-checked, and licensed individuals.
For both classes of possession, militias and individuals, an indemnifying insurance policy should be mandated. This is only in keeping with the responsibility that ownership, possession, or use of any these weapons bestows. The liberty that so many argue about as being enshrined in the 2nd amendment is not without a concomitant responsibility.
Militia-style weapons belong in well-regulated militias, not in the public square. For, honestly, how else can we ensure the "security of a free State?" It's right there in the 2nd amendment .
4
The writer implies that regulating the process for acquiring guns to exclude access to guns by lunatics is enough. It is not. Everyone is a potential lunatic. Possession of semi- automatic weapons as well as automatic weapons should be forbidden by law for all civilians.
2
Of course the author knows that the 3/5ths rule was intended to help stop slavery. Had the slave states been allowed to count slaves ad a whole person, their congressional representation allocation would have swollen to the point no anti-slavery legislation could pass. Author is absolutely correct there is a festering cancer attacking the Constitution but it isn't from within the God inspired document; it is from without in the form of the ever-present Marxist prevaricators like himself. I truly doubt the Founding Fathers anticipated malignant provisions such as infanticide, confiscatory criminal taxes on wealth, a huge welfare state, forced campaign funding in the form of the Social Security Ponzi scheme, the anti-business EPA, the anti-Christian onslaught etc. Hopefully we can chip away these cancerous lesions and get back to the miraculous document that made this great country the wonder of human history and light to the world.
What to do with a Cancer??? Excise, cut it out. Either restrict guns to those used when the Second amendment was written, OR repeal the amendment. Enough Death, enough suffering, enough Heartbreak.
ENOUGH.
3
Here is the kernel of truth in this rant: if you don't like the 2d Amendment then go try to repeal it. That is the only legitimate way in a democracy to change the law. Repeal won't succeed, you say? Well, that proves that the law - as it is now- represents the general will of this country.
1
I'm sick of hearing about gun-owner's "rights."
I want to be able to:
walk down the street
go to a restaurant
visit the beach or a playground
send my children to school
and...go to a concert
without living in a hostile environment of paranoid gun owners, good ol'boys, and wanna-be sheriffs?
What about the rights of the rest of us?
4
Just because you want something doesn't mean you have a right to it. People do not lose their constitutionally protected rights just because you don't want to be around period who are exercising them.
It's quite the ego you have there thinking your desires trump the rights of others.
1
So, there are 10 amendments that form the bill of rights. Do you believe the 1st amendment applies to the people individually, or only to organizations such as the New York Times, CNN et al? Same with the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc.
Obviously they all apply to individuals. So why is the 2nd exempted? The answer is that, like all the rest, it also applies to individual citizens. Get over this "militia" nonsense.
1
If “militia” is nonsense, why is it mentioned? The opening phrase of a statement is considered to set the tone of subsequent statements. It clearly means something.
While I believe the Supreme Court decision on the 2nd amendment was incorrect, it is somewhat of a red herring when discussing the current state of gun ownership. As other readers have pointed out, the Court left open the question of gun restrictions and they have never held that the type of arsenal used in the Las Vegas massacre was protected by the 2nd Amendment. The problem is that the gun lobby and its supporters have enough clout to prevent the passage of laws that seriously restrict these arsenals. Even with the horrific events in Las Vegas, the GOP may allow restrictions on bump stocks, as though this will solve the problem. We have a gun culture (see David Brooks column today) that will continue to exist irrespective of the 2nd Amendment.
1
If someone is planning a mass murder and doesn't care if he dies himself, there is nothing you can do to stop him
12
Yes, that's obviously true, but that's just not the point. The point is that a person can kill and injure many, many more people with semi-automatic or automatic weapons that he could with a handgun or hunting rifle. If you were one of those thousands in Las Vegas running for your life as you saw the dead and wounded lying around, you most likely would like to make it more difficult for others like him to kill and injure so many so easily.
Keeping rapid fire machine guns out of his hands might be a good start. Having a national gun registry might be a good start. Restricting military weapons to the actual military might be a good start. There are many, many things one might want to try before throwing up ones hands and declaring there's nothing anyone can do. It is patently untrue.
Bill of Rights is not a list of State rights...or Federal government rights......but INDIVIDUAL rights!
1
A majority of Americans wanted Hillary Clinton to be president, but that carried no weight either.
If the Second Amendment is a cancer, it resides in a body wracked with the debilitating disease of moneyed self-interest. It may be a cancer, but it's a symptom of decades of poor democratic health. Cut the cancer out, but the patient is still very much at risk.
5
A vast number in California wanted her. The rest of the country, not so much. Our Constitution provides for that -- big states and those with lopsided votes don't get an outsized voice in choosing a President. Good or bad, that is how we've always done it, and I for one am glad of it. We'd have no end of trouble if the country could be run by a couple of dominant political machines in a few big states.
4
Mark: Or if a foreign government is allowed to influence our elections? Guess you are glad of that too as long as the majority of voters have no voice. Particularly those in California.
California voters have every bit as much right to representation as those of Wyoming, Alaska, or Nebraska. The electoral system deprives them of that representation. It's not states or 'machines' that need representation, it's people. (BTW, why would you assume that machines are a bigger political force in large states than in small ones?)
I might also argue that citizens of small states are more isolated from global and domestic social forces. They are not, to the same extent, exposed to people from other countries or cultures. They are overwhelmingly white. Putting them in control has the potential to make us less nimble at a time when, technologically, we need to be nimble. And without the exposure to other points of view, such people may also be more susceptible to propaganda (as we've seen in places like Turkey, Iran, and, I would argue, here).
Moreover, the electoral system divides us. Presidential candidates don't feel any need to present their cases to states where they have no chance of changing the outcome. This means that our fellow citizens in Alabama won't understand how why we oppose Donald Trump, and we won't necessarily understand why they would support him.
Understanding is the seed of unity. Divided we fall.
Why no mention of how extensive studies have shown more legal gun ownership equals a reduction in gun homicide rates? Why no mention of how Chicago's incredibly strict gun control laws have almost no effect? Facts don't fit the NYT narrative.
1
There is a porous boundary between Indiana and Chicago - that's why people who want guns travel across the state line. We need universal gun control, not state's rights.
JQuincy,
What you describe as 'Chicago's incredibly strict gun control laws' were mostly struck down, so no longer exist, by the United States Supreme Court.
So much for States' rights, or those of cities.
It's pretty easy to imagine how much worse Chicago could get if its limited regulation of fire arms were made any weaker.
What studies?
Name them and their underwriters Mr. Bump stock.
We are not suffering from some type of homicide crisis. The homicide rate is less than half of what it was in 1980. Despite the proliferation of guns in our country, homicides have not increased; they have in fact declined dramatically. We are not the most violent nation on Earth or even among developed nations. Approximately 2/3 of all gun deaths in America are suicides, and our suicide rate among developed nations is lower than the mean average and only slightly higher than the median. When you combine suicides with other homicides, the United States intentional violent death rate is lower than Belgium, Finland, Hungary, Japan and South Korea, and it is about equal with France. Events like the Las Vegas massacre are tragic and spectacular, but they are not indicative of a crisis of violent deaths in America, unless you believe that lives of the victims in Las Vegas are somehow more important than other lives.
14
Your statistics are cold comfort. I am not concerned with other countries as comparative solace. I am concerned with what is happening in my country and it's innocents.
Perhaps the issue isn’t the Second Amendment, which has always been in the Bill of Rights, but the normalization and acceptance of graphic violence in our society over the past 50 years through the popular culture.
Growing up in the ‘60s, one never saw extreme violence in TV and movies and I can’t recall anything near the level of gun violence we have now. These days, it’s rape, violence, blood, and gore 24/7 in the popular culture so perhaps there is some cause and effect here. Couple that with extreme narcissism and we shouldn’t be surprised when the most mentally vulnerable or evil people act to an extreme.
1
I do not consider the gun owners of America to be anything approaching a " well regulated militia." If they want guns, and SCOTUS says they can have them, doesn't it make sense that they should have to train, say, one weekend every month and two weeks of every year to be a well regulated militia? Then if a President wants to start a war somewhere we can send these people and they can bring their own guns and ammo.
4
It doesn't matter what you consider them. The founding fathers, the people who actually wrote the Constitution, wrote about what made up the militia. It has always been the body of the people.
There are no weekend requirements needed to participate in our rights.
Yes to this article. In so many things; guns, robo calls, Facebook selling our info, everything has gone so far beyond the normal context and original ideas. But its all so fast and courts are so slow. And certain people have twisted everything around so much; really I think many people could be convinced of just about anything! Just be loud and constantly in everyone's faces and wear us all down. Even in Christianity; as a church going person, I can't believe the junk they are passing off as being Christian! and since they are the loudest, they win. We have behind the 8 ball for 20-30 years. Sadly, this all leads to even MORE frustration with our lives that now seem to be controlled by others. How much time and headache and money will it take us to recover from identity theft from Experian and other hacks. Will this drive some person over the edge with weapons that have no business being out there. (I am a gun owner, but want most gun control bills passed). Heaven help us all.
and the courts only deal with the issue as presented without going back to the original history of what things were done and the WHY they were done that way. Guns - militia. And for those of you on either side of the issue, even the laws in the late 1800s about abortion were not supposed to do what everyone today thinks they did. Why can't courts look at the entire picture and put things in context. And why are citizens, 'we the people' always the last consideration. Things have gone upside down.
We've tried doing nothing and that hasn't worked. Maybe it's time to
try doing something.
106
Plenty of people are "doing something" and it seems very ineffective. Perhaps you could give some specifics.
In today's world, the 2nd amendment is little more than a high and mighty justification for military-grade weaponry to reign terror down on defenseless civilians in the public square. All in the name of unfettered profits for the gun industry. It is way past time for the 2nd to put to rest in the trash bin of history.
1
This is the worst kind of journalism: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” does not have a period after State, but a comma. What's omitted? "…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The actual right described it’s a right of the People.
The "well regulated militia" isn't overlooked at all, but thankfully the Supreme Court owns a dictionary. "Well Regulated" has absolutely nothing to do with regulations. A well regulated clock keeps good time and a well regulated diet keeps you healthy. A well regulated newspaper wouldn't mean gov't regulation, but that the news wouldn't be biased and the paper would arrive on your doorstep promptly each morning. It's the worst kind of self delusion to believe it means anything else.
Mr. Egan is also unaware that He's the militia. The militia is clearly defined and various militia acts enacted by Congress, including one in 1792. Militia is every able bodied person capable of serving who is not, repeat, not in any regular armed service. To call up the "militia" means to call up "the people" to serve as an armed force. Militias may trained in those days, but not belonging to "a militia" did not make you not part of "the militia."
If anyone wants change in gun laws the first place to start is to stop trying to reinvent language, history, and everything Madison wrote on the individual right to keep and bear arms, as its meaning is perfectly clear. That ship has sailed.
"Did the founders really intend to empower crazy people to kill children at school or worshipers in a church? If they did, then we should all have the right to portable nukes — for that is the logical conclusion of such an argument."
Did the founders really intend for people to have access to the internet, printing presses, and newpapers? I think not. The author should put his money where his mouth is and limit himself to quill and parchment.
This author has a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution.
The Constitution does not give us rights.
The Constitution restricts government from infringing upon the rights we are born with.
1
Yes. We have natural rights that come from God not government.
1
The NRA is powerful not merely because of the money it spends in support of candidates for Congress, it is powerful because it has a national membership. This membership is not in the NRA, as least not mainly, because they want a gun in every hand and ammo in every chamber. They are lured into the group because it presents itself to them as an educational effort to inform on the safe use, storage and firing of weapons and lends support to those who like to go hunting.
The NRA presents one side to its members and, before you can count to three, it turns its back on the associative, educational purpose to represent the merchants of death who build houses, pay their bills and send their kids to college on money taken by making and selling fire arms.
If you want to reasonably monitor, regulate and limit the continued expansion of available fire arms in our country, form an organization of five to ten million concerned citizens. (The NRA has somewhere under 5 million.) Get your members to pay membership dues. (The NRA typically charges $35/year.) Keep the demands measured, reasonable, not overarching. Ideally, your membership would be located in swing states with the power to decide presidential elections.
Hand guns are the weapons of choice in urban, street warfare over drugs, money and sexual conflicts centered on who's cheating on whom. Though mass killings are horrid and shock everyone, far more people are killed in drug turf wars or because of gang rivalries.
1
The Constitution and the 2nd Amendment are fine. Did you ever notice that the anti-gun people come from the parlors and salons of the city--like Egan for the New York Times? In the 'fly-over' country where lots and lots of Americans actually live, this commentary would go over like the "lead zeppelin" where common sense says that 99.99999% of people probably own and indeed handle guns--all kinds of guns--just fine.
1
Am I the only one who sees the tragic irony in the fact that the same voting bloc that so passionately defends the rights of the unborn is so utterly contemptuous of any attempt to restrict the sale of automatic weapons, guns that only exist for the purpose of killing as many humans as possible? I suppose that looking for any logic and moral consistency in our political leaders is expecting way too much.
1
And the other side of the political spectrum would rail against a court system that after hundreds of years found the right to an abortion. Political commentary today is like Chicken Little running around crying the sky is falling. In the end the people get the government they deserve. I believe we deserve the $20 trillion federal debt because we have become a society where people want free stuff and everyone gets a trophy for participating.
" The amendment itself is not the problem. Yes, it’s vague, poorly worded, lacking nuance. But the intent is clear with the opening clause: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”
The purpose is security — against foreign invaders and domestic insurrectionists."
This is false.
The founding Fathers wanted to ensure that Big Government could not take away God given rights.
Big Government want's to take away free speech by limiting campaign contributions.
Big government is already taking an obscene amount of our hard earned pay via taxes.
Doesn't this take away our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness??
Beware....the Guardian had a early claim that we don't have the right to eat meat because of global warming.
Go read the ar5tticle..Liberals believe they know best and want to tell us what to do !
Yes commissar.
1
Because this commentary is a sober, well-reasoned, and historically accurate reading of the Second Amendment, it has absolutely no chance of success with congress, the president, and even several members of the Supreme Court. We are too far down the rabbit hole.
3
Mass shootings are almost always carried out by white men. And the paper has previously pointed out that when white men are mass murderers, there is an immediate presumption of mental illness. When people of color carry out mass murder, mental illness is not immediately invowued, pointing to a very unfair discrepancy. Many of the commentators say that guns are not the problem, but sanity, or apparent lack thereof, is. Mr. Paddock seems to have been exceptionally canny and smart, if murderous. Since we cannot seem to sort out motives, let’s curtail gun use.
1
The Constitution is not cancerous.
It is not a "living document" subject to whatever interpretation feels good at the time.
Not every disaster requires the panic need to "just do something!"
Sometimes the devil shows his ugly face, and all the legislation in the world will not erase evil from humanity.
Pandering and posturing and trying to appear that you are "doing something," for political gain, is an insult to the victims.
Pray for the good folk cut down by this maniac and support and comfort the survivors.
Capitalism causes Cancer. The NRA has financed their candidates by appealing to the paranoia of the electorate. It has come to the point of being ridiculous with the “Hearing Protection Act Bill”. That Bill will protect the Hunter’s Hearing and also make our city neighborhoods’ quieter since no one will be disturbed the evening drive by shootings.
Other Cancers affecting our nation are:
> Wall Street defeating the Glass-Steagall Act and inventing the 401(k) which has everyone betting their retirement savings on Wall Street.
> Our Great American Corporations who took control of the EPA and got Citizens United passed by their Supreme Court.
You are right - trying to restrict the rights of law-abiding Citizens without the provision of due-process is a "no brainer." You don't do it. You don't make a man petition the government to restore his rights taken by administrative action. No other right - not to speech, or the press, or practice of religion, or protection from unreasonable search and seizure, or protections against cruel and unusual punishment evaporate just because you're put on the "no fly list," but apparently the most basic right - that to self-defense - is a candidate because bed-wetting children are afraid of guns.
Go ahead and outlaw the sale, manufacture, and use of "bump-stocks" and other devices that cause a semi-automatic rifle to fire at a rate comparable with a fully-automatic rifle. And then you can sit around and wonder why people are still using them to commit atrocities when they simply use their 3D printers to manufacture them in secret. The mechanics of the bump stock are now public knowledge, and it wouldn't take very long with some simple 3D software to design and print one.
The truth is, nothing is going to stop a determined attacker from committing crimes of mass destruction. All one has to do is analyze the attacks in Europe in recent history, in countries with absolute gun-control the likes of which American Liberals only dream of, to see that "gun control" means unarmed civilians staring down the barrels of evil men with no recourse but to die.
The problem isn't the guns. It's the mass murder. If we took away every gun in the country, evil people would still be able to employ any of a dozen methods to mass murder. Steven Paddock could have stolen an 18 wheeler and driven it through the venue. He was a pilot, so he could have loaded his plane with explosives and crashed it into the venue.
We look at evil and we think that grabbing everyone's guns will solve the problem. It won't.
9
This is a specious argument. Reducing access to guns, uniformally across State boundaries, would do a lot to reduce the murder and suicide rates. Sure humans will still find ways to harm themselves and others. We can't ban rocks or vehicles, but it's hard to argue that hitting someone over the head with a rock, or driving a truck into a crowd is as easy as it is to shoot people with guns. You can poison someone with Tylenol, but it doesn't work as well as strychnine or cyanide.
Well... at least trucks and commercial driver's licenses are regulated to the point that he would have had to steal a truck. Much easier just to buy 50 guns, convert them to full auto, equip them with large capacity magazines and stack them up in a pile so he could fire several thousand rounds in short order, since that's totally unregulated.
In what way does making that more difficult to do create any legitimate problem?
There are many very silly replies to the column.
The egregiously insipid read on the 2nd amendment has brought it into conflict with other amendments. As soon as you show up at a rally with a deadly weapon, you have negated others' rights to freedom of speech and freedom to peacefully assemble. The conflicts of these amendments should be enough for any reasonable person to more accurately interpret the meaning of the 2nd amendment. I'm sure the authors of the Constitution did not intend for one amendment to infringe on another.
Slavery and the 2nd Amendment are not unrelated sins, as Michael Moore illustrated in "Bowling For Columbine." Guilt instilled in Americans a constant fear of a slave rebellion, a fear and guilt that each generation transfers onto a new population of "Others."
Automatic weapons have been in the hands of American's for almost 100 years. Since the end of WW1 citizens could buy weapons that are effectively today's assault rifles.
Given that fact - only in the last 20 years has the use of weapons in mass killings become almost common. Apparently it wasn't the availability of the weapons.
Lets ask the harder question - what in American society has created so many angry, entitled, bitter people have lost all sense of humanity, right/wrong - any moral compass at all?
I think the readers of the NYT will avoid this question. To answer it requires an examination of the core changes to society in the last 50 years. The slow decay of religion, the decay of the family, an internet that increasingly isolates individuals from communities while offering a veneer of easy, dismissive concern.
Ask the hard question - what policies or social upheavals created this new, selfish, entitled word deviod of empathy? Progressives pride themselves on "caring" - but caring only for the social groups designated for caring. Others? Dismissed, ridiculed, laughed at and ignored. Guess where the mass murders are coming from?
1
This writer needs to go back to 8 grade civics class.
The "well-regulated militia" refers to well trained citizens. Our Constitution here in Illinois defines the militia as all able bodied citizens. The militia refered to has not been replaced by the National Guard.
It is clear from the federalist papers and other writings that came out of the Constitutional Convention that the primary reason for the 2nd is to guard against federal government overreach, something that the Times has been in favor of for decades.
The opposition is not the NRA. You confuse a lobbying group with the overwhelming mass of people who support that lobby's purpose, even though they are not members of the NRA.
In the final analysis, the amendment is clear and has been interpreted clearly. In any case, the citizens of the U.S., gun owners or not, will not allow any other interpretation. The 2nd amendment guards all the other provisions of the Constitution, a document specifically written to limit the federal government. And it allows the people to do the guarding.
As to the provisions of the citizens ever being able to stand up to the federal military, 1) I don't think that the members of the military will every stand against the public and 2) look at what people from the 13th century have already been able to do against the 2 larges militaries in history in Afganastan. Look at Vietnam. Heck, look at Chicago's south side.
Nuff said.
Agree.
I don't think, as I believe you do, that we would have had the gun cancer if it weren't for the Second Amendment. If the amendment didn't exist, then it couldn't have been warped, twisted by the NRA and then by the Supreme Court. There wouldn't have been the use of the Second Amendment to legitimize the cancer.
But unlike real cancer, there is no way to treat the gun cancer, to prevent its spread.
Getting tired of the "deep-seated alienation" that some use to understand or justify gun ownership? This citizen is getting tired of that excuse. Gun owners need to take a step back and think about the harm their so-called right to bear arms inflicts on society.
Gun violence is a public health issue. Guns should only be carried by police and used by the military. Here is why.
Good guys with guns saving lives theories are ridiculous. Grandmas with hand guns in their purses are ridiculous. Open carry is ridiculous. Tending to a crying baby in the back seat of the car with a gun on your hip is ridiculous. Children aiming a parent's gun at another child is ridiculous. Bringing a child to a shooting range and having her shoot a gun that is too big for her so that the recoil causes her to kill her "instructor" is ridiculous. Giving a gun as a Christmas present is ridiculous. Silencers are ridiculous. ( Try earplugs.) And to think that NRA's phony statement about possibly regulating the gadgets that modify semi-automatic weapons into military capacity weapons is ridiculous. Too little too late.
Let's look to the example of other countries that ban or otherwise limit gun ownership. They are not ridiculous.
Gun owners should think more about making something of their lives rather than putting other lives at risk. They need to stop being ridiculous.
1
Of course the government can restrict and regulate arms. I can't buy a surface to air missile, I can't buy a tank, I can't buy a bomber and some bombs. My right to assemble the kind of equipment I'd need to have any hope of fighting a tyrannical government is definitely infringed.
And rightly so. Who'd want to see a Charlottesville with tanks? What police officer would want to chase a gang that had helicopter gunships?
1
For an indication of what "a well regulated militia" meant at the time of writing, the Militia Acts of 1792 provide insight. Something like compulsory National Guard service for men of military age. That, of course, doesn't exist today, leaving the second half of the Second Amendment untethered from its original raison d'etre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
Wyoming, population 600,000, can, through its senators, thwart the will of California, population 40,000,000. America has never had a democracy. America is the world's greatest pseudo democracy.
3
A free African American in a slave-free state was worth 2/5th more. The Constitution was and is pro-freedom not pro-slavery.
Excellent column.
I'm as concerned about the omnipresent ownership of firearms in this country as I am about Trump having his finger on the nuclear button.
Scotland and Australia both radically changed their gun laws after mass killings and dramatically reduced the gun violence. It can and has been done already.
America needs to lose its love affair with guns.
The argument that "I want to be able to defend myself in of these massacres" is totally bogus. It's never happened - the killers keep shooting and everyone ducks and runs, as they should.
As usual Egan has zeroed right in on the problem.
It's depressing to be an American right now. But ..... we know what's wrong so we have to go about fixing it. Problem is that when it comes to solving problems, the current occupant of the White House couldn't find his feet in a phone booth. As a matter of fact, it almost seems like he does everything he can to cause chaos and mess things up.
Elect a clown.
Expect a circus.
My advice for progressives is to run for office on "repeal the 2nd amendment". Nominate a presidential candidate who advocates that as well. I dare you.
1
The bump stock was made legal in 2010 by the BATF. Remind me again who the president and attorney general were at that time, Mr. Egan.
Tim... well said, and with the comments regarding the other Cancer (unlimited corporate political donations through the First Amendment), there needs to be more discussion about what is the Original Sin of our nation- the Genocide of the First People and the continued downplay of it's impact and importance.
How could founding fathers imagine that after 200 years, arms would be so powerful that only one person can kill dozens and wound hundreds from half a mile away? They still wrote "Well regulated militia" which right wing completely ignores.
And no politician told these gun zealots that no amount of this type of weapons will help them fight against tyrant government. Best way to fight there is to vote.
The worst cancer is in the unwritten part of the Constitution, namely the primary system. This is the worst evil because it multiplies the effect of all the others: money, extremism, gerrymandering, the effect of the Internet, unqualified Presidential candidates, the lack of one-person-one vote in the Senate, the lack of one-person-one vote for the Presidency - you name it. The primary system makes all of them worse. Gun control is one very important and very dramatic example but not the only one.
1
The cancer evidenced by this commentary is in the First Ammendment, not the Second. Mr. Egan indulges in sweeping generalizations that, rather than offering new perspective or information, simply use tragic carnage as an excuse to vilify a political party and promote partisan fervor. An call to arms disguised as an anti gun message? That seems like the height of hypocrisy to me.
1
Yes the second amendment has masticated into a cancer on our nation, an apt term, except that there are so many "cancers" on our nation right now (wealth disparities, health crises, etc) , we should be in hospice on life support.
Could it be said that our nation had brain cancer?
WRONG! The cancer is not in the Constitution. It's manifested itself in the liberal left that insists on infringing on the rights of the American citizens. It can't get enough of the hard earned wages of workers to pay for all the "do-good" programs demanded by those that don't want to work for a living. But as with most cancers, they eventually consume everything around them and die in the process. Looks like that is what has been happening over the past 9 years....
1
In all the words written or spoken about this man in the last few days alone, not once has anyone called him, "Militia".
48
Important issue! Words, and their interpretations, are only a small part of the complexities.The "cancered" Constitution,and whatever relevant Amendments, are misleading as a metaphor.There is need to go beyond words. Words inadequately represent the realities of any targeted "IT." It's US, ordinary folk, a different kind of: WE the people... who empower and enable the constructed, sustainable, daily, violating of ranges of diverse "others." In a toxic WE-THEY culture.The rite to BARE arms? What about the RIGHT to live?
In safe life spaces.Equitable opportunities for achievable well being.Sharing of human and nonhuman resources needed for daily living.Healthy coping. Adapting. Fueled with mutual respect.Trust.Caring. Help when, and as, needed. By kin.Neighbors. Friends.Strangers who may become...What is the underpinning of a right to "willful blindness" about what is going on? That shouldn't be.Not going on, which needs to be? Deeds. Actions. Willful deafness to harmful words?Vocalized hated?Discriminating voices of principles-of -faith, by fellow beings who are "religious" in name only. Practicing unprincipled "theologies" in the name of? Ordinary, diverse, people are doing terrible things to selected as well as random ordinary people. Every day. Everywhere.Each of US can do just a little bit to make a needed difference for bettering life. Our own.And of others.Metaphors for menschlichkeit are, by themselves, insufficient.The can and do misuse limited human resources.
The time has come for We the People to repeal the second amendment. Once repealed, we can then begin anew, if we choose, and freshly consider the question of whether it is necessary in America in the 21st century to constitutionalize the issue of gun ownership. Life has changed profoundly in the United States since our Constitution was created. Issues of personal and public safety are vastly different now from what they once were in the 18th century.
Amazing.
Why is it that when it comes to the second amendment those on the left turn in to strict orginialists?
Every other right is interpreted to include any flavor-of-the month social issue, but when it comes to the 2nd amendment, everyone must only have a musket because that is all that existed at the time the constitution was written.
Under this logic the First Amendment doesn't cover The internet, radio, or television.
1
Amen. They also ignore the fact that the militia was the citizenry. But somehow, today, the 2A was of course speaking of the National Guard.
The Second Amendment was obviously intended to provide for an armed militia back when civilians served in the militia and brought their own guns. The modern problem with he amendment is that it is interpreted in a stupid fashion by the courts and groups like the NRA. It should have gone by the boards years ago.
The problem is not the change in gunsmithing technology that has led to the problem we face today. Even though Scalia called himself an originalist , he was a complete judicial activist when he overturned the traditional understanding of the meaning of the second amendment. He chose to ignore the phrase "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Traditionally this has been interpreted as the state's militia as having the right to bear arms. Scalia's activism created the constitutional right for evey individual to bear arms.
Yes, militia at the time was the male citizenry willing to take up arms for the protection of those unwilling or unable to take up arms. Sounds to me like everyone with a concealed carry permit, trained in its use, for personal protection.
There is no way to quantify how many times someone doesn't die because of the presence of a gun, but it happens everyday in America.
Conservatives rally for judges who will, in Scalia's formulation, not legislate from the bench but instead honor the plain meaning of the words, as understood by the drafters when enacted.
That's all well and good, until they come across some plain meaning words they don't like: such as "a well regulated militia".
Or, think "equal protection" somehow doesn't apply to gays?
Or think "due process" somehow doesn't prohibit voter suppression or gerrymandering.
who was this "well regulated militia" in that time? A well trained citizenry who volunteered for the protection of the community or state against Indians, criminals and tyrannical governments. There were few communities that had police forces. The citizenry PROTECTED THEMSELVES!
And still do today and have every right from God and the constitution to do so.
Bump stocks, while lethal, are a red herring. You can automate semi-automatic assault weapons without a bump stock. I learned that from a New York Times comment. Bump stocks are largely irrelevant to a determined attacker. Republicans are offering a deal that looks like action but isn't worth a pennyweight in addressing the underlying problems.
I don't think the 2nd Amendment or any legal interpretation thereof really matters either. As noted, the battle for militias was lost in 2008. Without a new SCOTUS, I can't see that determination changing any time soon. People are dying now though. What we need is one of two things or possibly both.
1) Consumer sovereignty. We need the people actually buying guns to put pressure on politicians and the gun industry to take action. Something like: Hey, I like my guns but this is out of hand. I don't need a 40 caliber machine gun, just a few hunting rifles. Anyone still remaining silent on the need to address mass shootings is now complicit in the killings regardless of their political affiliation and/or proposed solutions.
2) Accountability. No one is ever taken to task for the weapons used in massed shootings. Enrique Marquez is the closest we've ever come to an exception. Sending Dylann Roof to prison or knowing Stephen Paddock is dead provides little preventative deterrence to would-be assailants. Opening gun vendors and owners to prosecution however will change their behavior dramatically. That would be my suggestion.
At the outbreak of the Revolution, the first thing the royal governor did in Virginia was to seize the Powder Magazine in Williamsburg. The rebels couldn't seize it for them selves and were left with only what they had in their homes or could eventually buy. The Second Amendment was meant to never leave the People of the United States in such a desperate, unarmed situation again.
The only way to stop gun violence is to so onerously regulate gun ownership that the exercise of the right to own a gun is effectively nullified. For that to happen, you also need to be open for all other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights to also be so regulated that we lose them to. Because that was the other thing the Second Amendment was for: to put the government on notice that an armed population was ready and able to put down a tyrannical government. Without the Second Amendment, we have no guarantee that our other Constitutional rights won't be stripped from us.
3
I wonder how the refugee situation would look and how many people would have come to America over the years of more countries had a protected right like our 2nd Amendment. What if the Irish had the firepower of the British? The famine would not have been a famine. How many people would have stayed in their ancestral homeland, if they could protect themselves from government abuse and oppression? People had to come here and still have to come here, because running was/is the only option elsewhere. From that point of view, the 2nd doesn't seem so cancerous or anachronistic. When in modern times we want to see people fight government we expect outside government to offer high-powered and high tech weaponry at huge cost. Guns do get used in heinous crimes. But do we ask the Kurds to get local permission before they bear arms?
2
We are living in a police state yet we don't feel safe, especially people of color—unsafe at any speed. However, without asking the federal government, any city or town can decide to disarm its police.
How would that work? A SWAT team would be at headquarters 24/7. When a 9/11 call came in over domestic dispute and the person calling says, yes there is a gun in the house—the SWAT team goes.
Police cars must always have two officers, body cams on, and one taser between them. Police opposed should resign and find a new career.
So to the 2nd Amendment well-regulated militia. In my view, we need a five years moratorium on the manufacture for U.S. sale of all military-style assault weapons as they are manufactured for warlike offense—not the defense of someone's castle.
However, people who own these guns swear they are fun to shoot and regularly go to their gun club for firing practice. We can give these citizens the benefit of the doubt. By law, all assault weapons, including sniper scoped rifles should be permanently stored at the gun club. That would be an update of the regulated militia the 2nd Amendment refers to.
The only guns allowed to be purchased over-the-counter should be 6-shooter revolvers, Winchester style rifles, single and double barrel shotguns.
Background checks must include permanent surveillance by FBI of all people purchasing gun after gun after gun. In that case, the horror of Las Vegas would not have taken place.
http://thegovernmentinexile.live
So true. The Second Amendment has been corrupted by a minority and has inflicted great pain and suffering on the majority. Our present Republican lead Congress will never legislate common sense gun laws. We need to change Congress. We need to vote.
If individual gun owners see themselves as perpetual Revolutionaries, armed against government overreach, there's no reason to stop short of tanks.
If individual gun owners see themselves as cowboys, forever alone against outlaws, there's no logic to getting guns out of homes.
Federalist paper #46 was written by James Madison one of the architects of the Constitution. The idea was to have a standing army for the United States but the danger was that the standing army could become a power “unto itself” since there would be nothing to counteract it. The Militia was formed of ordinary citizens that were armed (just about everyone had firearms) to be the counterweight. That way the military could grow itself as big as possible but they would always be outnumbered by the citizens. Yes, the army might have cannons and access to bigger artillery but they would be no match for the people. A modern example of this would be the guerrillas/freedom fighters in Afghanistan in the late 70’s and early 80’s against USSR. Some people have suggested that the National Guard has this purpose but the National Guard people are required to enlist in one of the armed forces branches. When the President calls the National Guard to duty he does it thru their applicable Military Branch. The militia was all the citizenry of the country all the ordinary people. Please read the #46 letter about 6 paragraphs into the letter itself.
1
I say, make it all public. Let's bring this all out in the open. Do not revoke the 2nd amendment, but create a new amendment that makes open carry the law if you own a gun, and if you own two guns, you have to open carry both; three guns, same; four guns, same; and so on.
It would be quite the sight to see the number of souls, trudging around slowly, burdened under the weight of all their bristling arms, so encumbered they can barely move. There is a deep allegory to be had in that.
The Second Amendment itself is the problem. It is not vague or poorly worded, and its lack of nuance is intentional. The amendment’s authors thought the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed so they could form militias to repel invasions or, if necessary, rise up against their own government as they did during the Revolutionary War. The sort of arms the amendment’s authors meant to protect were weapons of war. The amendment was written to protect “military-style” weapons.
Today, many Americans—including me—think the danger posed by firearms exceeds the danger of disarming or partially disarming the citizenry, but many Americans disagree. I think we should repeal or modify the Second Amendment, but we should not ignore it or pretend it is difficult to understand. If one article in the Bill of Right can be ignored or “misunderstood,” they can all be ignored or misunderstood.
The Constitution is just fine. And it is a fact that other countries with more guns have less gun violence, and that as guns increased in this country overall violence declined. The problem is one of the major parties refuses to abide by the longstanding constitutional framework and has become dysfunctionally obsessed with identity politics, race and gender, pursuing open borders, and refusing to accept the results of elections when they don't like the outcome. Instead of self correcting back to the middle they seek to impose their minority views on the majority. That's the cancer.
1
There are other countries with more guns? Which are they? Overall violence has declined because of the increase of guns? Really? When was the last time you watched or read the news?
I'll listen to anyone's argument about why the Second Amendment should be considered relevant today just as soon as they explain to me how it is any different than the Third Amendment.
One of the great disconnects of our history is how a nation birthed on the premise that all men are created equal could enshrine an entire race of people as three-fifths of a human being.
That "compromise" in the Constitution is not what most people think it was. The southern states wanted to count African Americans for the purpose of determining representation in the House of Representatives. The northern states did not want them counted at all. The eventual solution was the three fifth's compromise. It had literally nothing to do with valuing African Americans as being less that human.
Events trigger debates. Many of the mass shootings were followed by gun control measures that had little to do with the event itself. Most involved mental issues and there were some rational methods put forward to address such issues. The gun control measures sought had little or nothing to do with the facts in the actual event.
This time around, we know almost nothing so far about the mental state of the shooter. That will emerge at some point, we hope. However we do know that a device which literally converted a rifle into a machine gun, something already declared illegal, was used.
It should be no surprise that even the National Rifle Association is ready to join to address that specific issue.
And this article does nothing to address the issue of gun violence in major cities, or rural communities. In my hometown now many years ago, a man angered that his son was arrested got out his rifle and gunned down the towns entire police force, three men, if memory serves. Everyone in that town of 3,000 or so hunted and fished. I don't recall any talk of banning guns. This was an aberration and everyone knew it. What seems to be missing in today's case is that there are a few people who are dangerous and they aren't being reported or check upon. Surely someone knew the shooter and should or could have alerted authorities about it. Each particular problem has solutions and one size, just ban all guns, doesn't fit!
Why is the Second Amendment always interpreted in a vacuum when Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to:
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Article II, Section 2 gives the President the power to:
1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
I don’t think that the Framers intended the “right to keep and bear arms” to become unhinged from a “will regulated Militia.” Heller was a legislative disconnect on the part of the “strict constructionist” Scalia. It was the Court making new legislation. God forbid that Scalia did what the conservatives long and loudly have accused the Warren Court of doing.
Militia=Armed citizens. What's so hard to understand about this? There was no National GUARD in 1787!
The 2nd amendment makes no mention of cost or taxation. 1000% tax on guns and ammunition. And an annual registration fee. We will fix the deficit in no time.
Sure, because that worked so well for Prohibition.
1
Taxes...that's always the progressive answer.
This country has chief values of competition and capitalism, which somehow morphed out of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and opportunists in the land, taking advantage of the relative absence of regulation. It has followed us to the present day, absent legislation to modernize the system to fit even obvious and egregious needs of fairness and protection of the vulnerable. Darwinism, the survival of the fittest mentality, has squeezed in and held against the much more satisfactory and equitable values of sharing, common effort and good government. Gun abuses and violence are the most apparent evidence of that infection of our culture by unchecked violence.
While the 2nd amendment is an anachronism that should be repealed, it wouldn't be nearly as noxious if it hadn't been turned inside out by Republicans and the gun lobby. Unfortunately, there are a number of other problems connected to the gun blight. Perhaps the most significant is that, as a result of gerrymandering and the electoral college, we are no longer a functioning democracy. That has allowed the GOP to indulge white cultural disaffection and paranoia for political gain at a terrible cost to the country. The complete collapse of campaign finance reform is another. All in all, there's much work to be done before we can begin to curb the insanity of America's gun culture.
In the era in which the Constitution was written, described by Gordon Wood in "Empire of Liberty," the purpose of the second amendment was clear. The states legislatures were regarded as the direct expression of the people. They were expected to call upon the people to form militias to defend state security. A tax rebellion in New England – Shay's rebellion– was put down by local militias and precipitated of the constitutional convention. Essentially, the 2d amendment says that no national army can displace the power of the people – meaning the states.
We must recognize that Donald Trump is a symptom, not a cause, of the election of candidates such as Roy Moore (and his little pistol). The GOP is fracturing into a working and lower middle-class party of white people, united on such issues as immigration and race, fundamentally nativist and anti-federalist. The GOP establishment is beholden to the NRA, because if it dissents it will be primaried by its own populist wing.
The old GOP is weak right now –the new blue collar and lower middle class tribe is busting up the old party. This tribe embraces Trump and pretends to believe his lies because he is very much like themselves – poorly educated, despised in the circles he wishes to join, belligerent, and out of his depth in any intellectually demanding setting.
The Democrats must form a new Democratic party, a true coalition that can defeat the populist extreme. We await the SCT's crucial decision on gerrymandering.
Well said. I would add that the discussion we ought to be having regards what is an appropriate gun to own and how many. Any person looking to own as many guns as the shooter is clearly a terrorist risk.
Not every gun enthusiast in the US is crazy, but the notion that a decent sized minority can even think people should be sporting concealed (or open carry) guns in public is a problem. We do not live in the Wild West and our Wild West is an embarrassment compared to Canada which had much less violence, more structure, and less ill treatment of its native Americans. We need to stop romanticizing what ought to be viewed as a blight on our history and act like adults.
Unfortunately, money by the gun lobby and the NRA along with absurd populist rhetoric that appeals to the actual wacko, gun-toters makes that nearly impossible. It would be interesting to be allowed to collect statistics about gun violence and present them for all to see. Of course, the reasonable have already reached the obvious conclusion regarding the need for wide ranging gun restrictions and the Trump/GOP fringe don't believe in facts.
Extract from Article of Conderation VI (1777): “every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage”.
This was the law of the land before the federal constitution & Bill of Rights, and, in my view, provides the clearest possible view of what the Framers were trying to represent in the 2nd Amendment, in spite of Scalia's obfuscations and diversions. And by the way, “to bear arms” has had the very common metaphoric sense of “to act militarily” since long before the 2nd Amendment was written (e.g., ”England prepared to bear arms against France”).
There aren't two isolated sections of the 2nd: it is 100% about preserving well-regulated and adequately armed state militias. The true test of the 2nd occurred in the 1860s, at an enormous cost to the nation. Since then it has been completely obsolete, vestigial, and available for abuse by opportunistic gun merchants.
This was the law of the land before the federal constitution & Bill of Rights, and, in my view, provides the clearest possible view of what the Framers were trying to represent in the 2nd Amendment, in spite of Scalia's obfuscations and diversions. And by the way, “to bear arms” has had the very common metaphoric sense of “to act militarily” since long before the 2nd Amendment was written (e.g., ”England prepared to bear arms against France”).
There aren't two isolated sections of the 2nd: it is 100% about preserving well-regulated and adequately armed state militias. The true test of the 2nd occurred in the 1860s, at an enormous cost to the nation. Since then it has been completely obsolete, vestigial, and available for abuse by opportunistic gun merchants.
1
It's little wonder that for the past century, when new democracies around the world have looked for models when forging their inaugural constitutions, they invariably look to Canada, not the United States. One of the reasons is that we have made our original document into an quasi-intransigent document -- the secular Ten Commandments. Yes, there have been over two dozen amendments, but the last one was quite some time ago and it had to do with lawmakers raising their own pay rates as I recall. The Second Amendment is to the late 20th and early 21st century what the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Acts were to the early 20th century -- far more damaging in their unintended consequences than in their intended goals. Moreover, the Second Amendment is an outmoded muddle of some of the most incoherent English ever put into law. It ought to be repealed simply on the basis of Strunk and White, let alone the tens of thousands of useless deaths each year owing to too many guns in too many hands. Guns ought not to be outlawed, only bad laws that eat at the fabric of society. Not too much to ask of one's elected officials, is it? "The right of the people" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness "shall not be infringed" by a lousy, dangerous, amendment.
1
Far from killing us, the Second Amendment could be the salvation of our country now, were it only understood in its proper historical context!
What neither Left nor Right seem to comprehend is that the 18th century militia system it describes was designed as an alternative to a regular, standing Army. The Founders were quite explicit in their belief that a regular Army, such as Britain's, would inevitably find wars to drag the country into, with disastrous effects on American democracy. The militia was a civilian defense force that was consciously designed to take the place of the corrupt, aggressive, imperialist, monarchical standing Armies of Europe.
Today, in a country dominated by militarist values, as surely as the 700 billion dollar "defense" spending dominates the Federal budget, the average American would be surprised to learn that the US Army, except for a few frontier forts, went out of business in 1790. The War for Independence against the Empire was over--the people's Militias could handle any outside attacks--this is what the American Revolutionaries intended--and what we have forgotten. Against the War in Vietnam, 600,000 protestors jammed Washington DC. Today we are at war in multiple countries around the world with virtually no protest.
Not banning slavery was undoubtedly the Constitution's worst defect.
But the second sin was not explicitly banning a standing Army.
All the cliches but one, "outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns." The interesting part about this cliche is that it's true.
If the left wants to save lives from guns, then why don't they take the same approach they take with all of their other ideals, educate? Mandatory gun safety in public schools would save far more than 58 people a year.
I challenge the "common sense gun control" crowd, if you want to save some lives, let's educate. Or does that interfere with the agenda?
1
Boycott Las Vegas until NV enacts meaningful gun controls. As a one-industry town dependent on tourists, LV is uniquely vulnerable and if we shut it down, NV withers.
Unfortunately, the American "no longer a healthy democracy" has much broader and deeper roots than the grotesque legal loopholes and special interest abuse which the gun and murder lobby have opened up by way of twisted court rulings regarding the 2nd Amendment. A broken political system cannot be repaired while steadfastly denying many of the reasons for why it is broken. Here, for example, is just one of those reasons: Even before helping give George W. Bush an unjustified and unnecessary blank check for a blunder-ridden invasion of Iraq, many leading politicians of the Democratic Party of the US were plagued, as many still are, by pathological spinelessness.
1
I grew up in Texas in the 1980s. Before the Patriot Act and the surveillance state. Before our present police state with militarized law enforcement officers.
Gun ownership was common, but the fetishization that has given way to concealed and open carry permits had not yet spawned.
It was a freer America than today. Today's America is more childish (the byproduct of decades of dumbing-down - the idiocracy has finally arrived), and the instant gratification of one's whims is now equated with freedom and liberty. I want more and bigger guns, and I want them now! That's what passes for freedom in today's America. Meanwhile, these liberty lovers have no qualms about police forces that operate with impunity, ubiquitous government surveillance, and a prison population that dwarfs every other nation in the world.
Though I am not opposed to gun regulations, it's really not the guns that are the problem. We were once a gun owning nation that didn't fetishize them. We were once a nation that didn't produce people capable of committing massacres on a weekly basis. Unless those issues are dealt with head-on, no amount of new regulations are going to change anything.
61
Our prison population doesn't dwarf every other nation. It is huge and it is much larger than it should be, but there aren't that many innocent men locked up. We have a large prison population because we have a LOT of criminals. We should make those criminals more thoughtful about using guns in commission of crimes by actually prosecuting them with laws on the books about felons in possession of guns and using weapon during the crime.
I don't fear a felon while they are incarcerated, and frankly don't care how long their sentence is when weapons charges are added.
Watch homicides go down when we start tacking on sentences for weapon possession.
Wow- Repeal the 2nd Amendment, "Common sense" gun laws, "regulating" the 1st Amendment, "do away" with the Electoral College, "ban the Republican party".....reading the feverish dreams of the Times readers and their longing to shred our Constitution and mandate a leftist utopia merely reinforces the wisdom of our founding fathers including the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. It is obvious to all but yourselves why Democrats are rapidly becoming a marginal regional party, without power at any level. Want to repeal the 2nd Amendment? Go for it- the process is clearly explained in the very Constitution you revile. Want to pass laws? Win some elections. Until then, cluster in your urban hives where we can keep an eye on you.
5
Sure Tim, pass all the laws you want, and watch as they're disregarded by criminals and circumvented by the clever and/or insane. You're the same person telling me to "get used to" random acts of islamic terror, but yet you portend to have all the answers for stephen paddock. You're also the same person telling me how "unfair" the prison system is. So excuse me if I don't put a lot of stock in your efficacy or lack of double-standard.
3
Split the country, and liberals can adopt the Constitution of the USSR or Mao for their new country.
1
Let's not forget the mass murder committed by "Settlers" -- The Native American Genocide.
Unbridled killing is in the DNA of this country from the very start.
2
A suggestion there is a "cancer" in the Constitution is a non-starter for "The Normals" - those educated and non-leftist citizens. No need to read further except to find out what the traitorous are thinking. Our Constitution is a seminal document in human history.....end of discussion. There is no "cancer".....to the extent something needs changing, popular sentiment will drive an amendment. Part of being normal is recognizing you don;t get your way like a cry baby......you must vote for change, persuade for change, and be adult enough to accept when your opinion does not win the debate. The 2nd Amendment is absolute because people fear the "absolutism" found in this article, and the article proves its need. The psychopath in Vegas pulled the trigger, the gun is an inanimate object......period.
2
Indeed, the second amendment, as interpreted, is a disgrace, giving ample room for abuse by feeble minds to create havoc, the unambiguous maiming of innocent human beings. It stinks. This is not freedom, license instead. This is not what a healthy, mature, and responsible democracy is about. Our behavior is despicable, not you or you personally but us collectively. Otherwise, how do we explain the deviousness of the entire republican party, complicit in the 'morally insulting' killing of our neighbors? All to satisfy the greed, and power, of the gun lobby, and its ability to control our political prostitutes in congress? Most unfortunately, nothing will change...unless another crazy loon enters the hallowed halls of congress and mows down the very fellows that allows our sad predicament to prosper. Unless a salutary change is at hand, and soon, we are condemned to repeat the mayhem over and over. I repeat, over and over. As it stands, we are exceptional in our stupidity, our fate well deserving!
3
The 2nd Amendment is fraudulently misrepresented by the GOP and NRA for political and monetary reasons. They have blood on their hands.
3
When a strong majority of Americans become fearful that they or their families will become victims of gun wielding maniacs, gun laws will change.
1
The Second Amendment, as applied in the last 30 years or so, has become so perverted, twisted and misused that you have to see it now as the second original sin in the founding of this country, after slavery.
Ha. At least God was only guilty of one. We can't come close to holding a candle like we think we can. Why stop at ten when we can write thousands and thousands.
1
Two possible solutions this conundrum:
1. Declare the NRA a terrorist organization within our borders, and arrest the Koch brothers as accomplices on "material aid" grounds.
Or...
2. Declare Wayne LaPierre Supreme President, Speaker, and Majority Leader, by acclamation. Let's remember that little gun club, the NRA, before WLP perfected the art of consolidating money and power. That ability alone should qualify him, by current standards.
Regards,
JV
It amazes me when the gun debate goes on without mention of the elephant that is always in the American room - race.
A look at history suggests that a big part of the 2nd Amendment was the fear of the southern planters of slave revolts (vide Haiti). After the Civil War the continued dominance of the white minority over the blacks was enabled by their guns.
We should also remember what happened when the Black Panthers showed up carrying guns!!
1
"elephant ... in the ... room - race". I thought you were going to point out that Vermont has one of the highest rates of gun ownership and one of the lowest rates of murder in the US. Hint: it's the people.
When I saw the title, "The Cancer in the Constitution" I knew it had to be the commerce clause.
1
The anti choice religious zealots offer a good example of a first step in approaching this problem. They made up the name "pro life" to hide their religious bigotry behind.
Lets do this but in an honest way when talking about the so called "gun lobby." They are actually pro-death lobbyists. They lobby not for "gun makers" but rather for the weapons cartel and arms dealers.
Our fellow Americans are gunned down like rabid dogs because we allow pro death lobbyists like the NRA to promote policies to protect the weapons cartel and arms dealers.
4
Completely agree with this editorial!
2
Repeal the second amendment.
5
Strike the word "arms" and insert the word "muskets". That's original intent.
2
I disagree. I firmly believe the founders used "arms" to enable citizens to maintain "virtually" the same level of sophistication/capability as that of the government. it was written out of respect and fear of an oppressive system of government, which, coincidentally, they just got done fighting. also remember that "muskets" were state of the art back then.
1
Strike the words freedom of speech and insert town crier.
1
if the second amendment has become a cancer because of technological advancement, what of the the first amendment...leftists can use the same justification to shut dowm speech deemed unacceptable.
1
Oh, and by the way, the Obama administration made bump stocks legal.
1
"Repeal and replace" ... the Second Amendment!!!
2
There once was a fine constitution
That allowed its own evolution
But that seemed to be stuck
In the gun-loving muck
Of some warped opinion pollution
1
We're certainly not a healthy democracy when the propaganda arm of the political left, which brands itself as the "newspaper of record," can refer to a fundamental right that the Founders thought so self-evident they were concerned that writing it down would imply that it wasn't, as a "cancer." The premise and the theme of this viscerally illogical piece are both errant, and will ultimately persuade no one of anything.
2
And that is because sensible people do not laugh in the faces of all those righteous Republicans and NRA supporters when they shout "national security" as the reason for guns. How can the country and states have a "well regulated" militia when any idiot can outgun the militia? We the people have cowered from the vituperative statements and tweets emanating from those individuals, including the President, who have an interest in creating a well regulated militia of their own. The President has taken lessons from all the dictators, including Putin, about the necessity of controlling the armed forces in order to put down opposition. The Second Amendment is being used as a vehicle to eviscerate the constitution, not protect it. Anyone who thinks otherwise at this point better start paying attention,
1
There is nothing stopping the author or like-minded individuals from changing the Constitution. The process is clearly spelled out and has been used 27 times in our nation's history. If the political will exists to repeal the 2nd Amendment, it will happen. Short-circuiting the process will only serve to confirm the most paranoid suspicions of gun owners across the nation.
24
One of the issues with "watch lists" such as were proposed after the Orlando shooting, to address terrorism, or the proposed (and defeated) watch list to flag the"mentally ill" when buying firearms is the process through which one's name appears on them. It's telling that organizations such as the ACLU oppose lists of this kind as presently constituted because of the threat to civil liberties such as the rights to due process and privacy which they pose. There must be a clear process for being placed on such lists and a fair, accessible process for appeal. I'll share my own experience: my name has come up twice on no-fly lists while I was traveling abroad. On my way to Japan I was prevented from boarding, but was told that it is because my name probably cross-referenced with another's name and sent on my way. On my way home from Russia a few years later, I was detained with no explanation for several minutes. I can assure you that you don't want that happen in a place like Russia. I'm a guy who as never even had a speeding ticket! I'm in favor of reasonable gun control and always have been, but there are other considerations. Let's not throw out the baby with the proverbial bath water.
3
This comment applies to the no-fly list, not the gun violence debate. The no-fly list problems have existed since there was a no-fly list, regardless of whether you have a gun or not. Red herring!
The authors of the Constitution were wise and far-sighted. Nostradami, they were not. If the current right-wing, "originalist"-packed Supreme Court really was "originalist," the would stick with what was reality for the constitution writers. These men had no concept that the weapons of today would come to be, just as they had no idea that some day we could move about in complete physical comfort, regardless of the weather, in our heated and air-conditioned carriages capable of speeds north of 100 mph. I guess since cars weren't mentioned in the Constitution, that is the reason we must put up with rules on them: speed limits, stop signs, no-passing zones, one-way streets, turn signals, seat belts, age limits and tests to be successfully passed before legal operation.
Where would we be if the Constitution said:
Freedom of passage, being necessary to the full realization of liberty, the right of the people to travel at will shall not be infringed.?
5
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” the court wrote in that case. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose.”
What "purpose" indeed. Why should we live with the threat of being gunned down in a public place so that a small number of individuals can go to a firing range and get their kicks blasting semi-automatic rifles that discharge 40 rounds a minute? Why does any one person need 20 military-grade guns? These weapons serve no legitimate purpose. They are not used to hunt or protect homeowners. They are for fetishists who use them recreationally. Freedom is not measured by the number of guns hoarded by hobbyists, but by free speech and a representative democracy, now being held hostage by the NRA and a greedy lawmakers in Congress.
4
The NRA is just a lobbying body. Power is vested in Congress and the President. And we elect them. So we have only ourselves to blame.
I'm not a judge or constitutional expert, but I've been studying the Second Amendment and have been part of the gun debate- on both sides of the debate at various times in my life- for the last four decades. I long ago concluded that the Second Amendment refers to private gun ownership in the context of an organized militia, I believe that's what the founding fathers meant. Heller was an absurd ruling, and I hope, for the sake of future generations, that another ruling is handed down in the future which radically reshapes America's relationship with guns.
1
I hope so too, but as long as our public is confused by the NRA to equate a hunting rifle or two with semi- or fully-automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, etc., they'll continue to elect people like Trump, and all the NRA colluders in Congress. Have we become so simple-minded that we can't tell the difference? Those of us who want to ban mass-murder weapons need to define a platform that can't be misconstrued as "taking people's guns away." Mass-murder weapons were invented for warfare, and that's where they belong. They are like ticking time bombs, and I believe those are illegal, too.
Two of the favorite arguments advanced by some who oppose laws regulating guns is that the Second Amendment is there so people can arm themselves to protect themselves either from other people or from a government turned tyrannical.
Mass shootings make a mockery of this argument. We are the most armed people in the world, yet it is clear that we cannot protect ourselves from people like Dylan Roof and Benjamin Paddock.
Also, should the government fall under the control of a tyrannt and the armed forces refused to mutiny, which is likely if we ever reach the place where a tyrannt is in control, how well will small bands of patriotic, armed citizen do against the army and the Marines?
1
- The Constitution did not "enshrine an entire race of people as three-fifths of a human being," it (tragically) allowed slaves to augment the Southern states' Census counts.
- The 2nd Amendment protects "the right of the People to keep and bear arms." Period. As the Heller decision explains, the prefatory declaration of purpose does not restrict the individual right.
- However, it does help define the nature of the right, which is why individuals aren't allowed to own fully automatic weapons (or nuclear devices).
- Yes, weapons technology has advanced tremendously since the Founding. So has communications technology. If the 2nd Amendment applies only to muskets and flintlocks, then by the same logic the 1st Amendment applies only to materials printed with hand-composited type--so Congress should be free to censor any modern newspaper, not to mention the internet.
- Firearms regulation usually has matched technological advances. The Obama administration failed to regulate bump stocks. Most gun owners support such regulation.
- The powerful lobby is not the gunmakers, it is the gun owners--that is, the citizens.
- Since the 1960s, the courts have allowed uncounted thousands of violent felons to go free, misusing the Constitution in ways that would have appalled the Founders. That has caused vastly more carnage than all the mass shootings put together. The ACLU has a lot more to answer for than does the NRA.
1
It's odd that the author would open his screed citing the limited 'voting power' for slaves enshrined in the Constitution and then excoriate Congress and certain voters for effectively exercising their right to vote also enshrined in the Constitution.
The point he actually makes is that Democracy is broken. For surely that is what his argument boils down to.
Or perhaps he is implying that our entire system of government is broken because, like it or not, the Supreme Court sets the limits and scope of our Constitution and its amendments.
If it just the 2nd amendment he has a problem with, it is a simple matter to change it, just pass another amendment to the Constitution. It has been done 27 times, after all (See also 18th and 21st amendments).
Problem solved.
Timothy Egan's article makes it clear that he is unfamiliar with the intent of the 2nd, as is made historically plain by a huge volume of writings by the founders at the time. It uses the modern interpretation of "militia", instead of what was meant at the time of the framing of the Constitution. The 'father' of the Constitution, George Mason, makes it clear what the word meant at the time:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
This was in fact a statement he made during debates on the ratification of the Constitution, in Virginia, 1788.
Moreover, Egan misrepresents the "security" intent of the 2nd as against "domestic insurrectionists", rather than as a last ditch defense against the tyranny of our own government. Thomas Jefferson addressed this quite plainly in his letter to William Stephens Smith:
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
. . .and by George Mason:
" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
. . and by Patrick Henry:
"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
First choice: ban all gas-powered weapons and implement appropriate safety and ownership tracking requirements. This would allow properly licensed and trained sport shooters to keep small bore weapons.
Second choice: repeal the 2nd amendment. Confiscate all existing weapons.
1
You can't restrict hunters to "small bore" rounds. But the single action idea is a really good one and better odds for the game.
It is not just slavery and guns. It is the whole Constitution thing - the Entire socio-economic System.
The old, conceived by land and slave owning Founding Fathers for the agrarian era of 18th century, can not be morphed to fit today's needs with Amendments. It must totally go before something better can come in a new American Revolution II to align us for the new World Order of Globalization and Free Trade.
Unless we align ourselves with the world now led by China, India, Russia, Brazil, Iran, we would be left behind, devoid of innovation and technology, a vast agrarian nation requiring more and more guns to protect the land that feeds the world.
Ironically, Trump is our Gorbachev, a transformational figure who destroys a dysfunctional system from within. I wonder is that why he is fascinated with Putin.
It is not only the 2nd Amendment that is aiding the Congress in "... cowering to a single special interest..." Just about every act of Congress now "... shows how the cancer has spread to the democracy itself, making it nearly impossible for majority will to be exercised."
Even the ACA, while giving health care option to millions of citizens was also a giant give-away to big Pharma, big Insurance, and big HealthCare corporations. Look at their stock price trends, mergers, and acquisitions and it's clear.
The US House of Representatives represents the funders of their campaigns, not the people of the US. Until we the people fund their campaigns, they will be bought - both the campaigns and the Congresspeople - by the funders.
One of the major errors most typical citizens make in evaluating any of the founding documents of this country, from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution to the Bill of Rights, is that most of these rights were created for the states, NOT individuals. This is partly why it only became a problem later that blacks weren't free and women couldn't vote; the original documents were about states' rights, both their rights to conduct international trade independently and to set their own laws about religion and, of course, their right to defend themselves from outside intruders, as this article states.
As time has progressed our culture has turned to concentrate on the value of the individual and his/her rights, and the Civil War and civil rights movement showed the need for federal power. But in the late 1700s, the founding fathers were not concerned with letting each individual determine his own fate and life. They wanted to make sure the *states* could exist without the presiding monarchical rule of the British king.
When the author completely miscontrues how the three-fifths compromise was reached, there is no point in reading the rest of the article.
The Convention had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations. However, since slaves could not vote, white leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers. The compromise that was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position.[2] An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.
The Second Civil War will be fought a few generations hence when the citizens of our country repeal the 2nd Amendment, making it illegal to carry a gun, except for specified Peace Officers and the Military. It won't, however, be a long fight, since not many will be willing to die for their guns. For the most part, on the given day, a mountain of guns will grow on every town square. That will be the day.
"Well regulated militia" hardly sounds like the country and system we have. Is it really the constitution or how we interpret it and enforce it?
1
The strict constitutional originalists fail in a fundamental fact of the universe; time marches on; new facts and circumstances cause society to evolve. Our supreme court has done a mostly laudable job in keeping up with time. This week, Justice Ginsberg did pull Gorsuch up short with one line asking when Americans got the right of one person one vote in post emancipation 19th Amendment law.
If strict originalist thought were to prevail then all owners of non-flintlock guns should turn them in to be melted down. The duality of thought severely limits our system of laws and government from evolving. If we don't evolve, we run the risk of atrophy and getting relegated to the Darwinian ash heap.
'... no longer a healthy democracy...' We've never been even a healthy democracy: slavery, the 3/5 rule, the Electoral College, no women suffrage until into the 20th century, the poll tax until the 1960's, gerrymandering.
'American Exceptionalism' indeed: exceptionally backwards.
2
'“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” the court wrote in that case. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose.”'
That says it all. The price of freedom is not innocent people dying in mass slaughter, but compromise as a result of balancing individual rights. You have a right to smoke, but not everywhere. You have a right to drive, but only street-legal vehicles with the proper license, registration, and some places --outrage of all outrages-- insurance.
This is how our democracy functions. Your right to own an AR-15 must be balanced with another human being's right to live. We've come (again, and again) to the realization that we can't have both. One of those rights is going to outweigh the other one. Are you going to call the parent of a child who died at Sandy Hook and tell them your right to an assault rifle is more important than their child's right to live? Would you call any family of any mass-shooting victim and tell them their loved one's untimely slaughter was the price of freedom?
1
That Mr Egan can refer to the only protection we really have against the tyranny of our own government as "perverted [and] twisted" is a profound failure of his education.
Of course, Mr Egan, a man likely in love with Big Government and forever willing to subordinate himself to it will likely condemn as "paranoid" any assertion that our own government is our own biggest threat. And, in the 1760s, a lot of colonists scoffed at the idea that the king of distant England had anything other than their best interests at heart. Then along came the Stamp Act, part of slew of hostile measures collectively called the Intolerable Acts, the armed closure of Boston Harbour, the seizure of American goods, the economic oppression of America by British mercantilists...
Lord Actor was too cautious when he said power only tends to corrupt. No, actually, it always corrupts, and there's no entity on the planet more powerful than the US government.
The "cancer" isn't the Second Amendment, the cancer is a federal government that refuses to acknowledge any limit to its power, a government that blithely ignores the 10th Amendment and intrudes itself into every aspect of our lives. A government that abuses the only legitimate purpose of its power of taxation--"to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"--and uses it as a means of extorting compliance from states and citizens.
1
The Second Amendment does not protect ammunition. Control the bullets and the guns will follow.
100
Your argument that the Second Amendment does not protect bullets so you can allow the people guns but no ammunition to use them is like saying that the First Amendment only protects printing presses but not paper so the government can ban newsprint without abridging freedom of the press.
The 1st amendment doesn't protect paper, airwaves, internet, film or any other assortment of media. Control the media and the thoughts and words will follow. See how your idea works? The 2nd protects the 1st.
That particular sophistry has been rejected by the courts
I am not a gun owner (nor a republican if that matters), but the whole idea that gun control is an answer is absurd. there are 300 MILLION! guns in the usa today already. And every time the specter of gun control is raised, the nra gins up fears of ending 2nd amendment rights. What is needed is not to control guns (because most gun deaths are not from automatic weapons or other fancy items but simple revolvers) but real research into how gun deaths can be decreased (congress has passed legislation preventing the cdc from doing just that). If the idea of ineffective gun control wasn't an issue (and a dog whistle to people who like guns) , perhaps we could have a consensus on how to make gun ownership safer . The horse is out of the barn (again 300 MILLION guns in america today), closing the door makes no sense ( except in a symbolic it feels good way).Lets find a way to make gun ownership safer, for those with guns, and those without.
36
How many ticks are carrying Lyme disease? How many mosquitoes harbor malaria? How many people are infected with AIDS? Are you saying we should not deal with the problem directly at its source for want of numbers?
Why not look at 300 million guns and separate how many are semi-automatic? Congress has fallen down in even formulating direction to study the problem.
Want to make gun ownership safer, take an NRA gun safety class. The NRA produces the finest gun safety training found and it is simple and easy to obtain no matter where you live. You see, the NRA not only protects your 2nd amendment right as the ACLU protects your1st amendment rights, they are the largest and best purveyors of gun safety training in the world.
"We’re no longer a healthy democracy." Example: In 2016, Republicans received 49% of votes cast for the House of Representatives, and yet they now hold 55% of seats in the House; in 2016, Republicans won 47% of votes cast for U.S. Senators, but won 65% (22 of 34) Senate races; in 2016, the Republican candidate for President received 2.9 million fewer votes than the Democratic candidate, but "won" the election. If one definition of democracy is that election results reflect the will of the majority, then we are no longer a democracy at all. The Original Sin of the Constitution was recognizing a the right to own slaves. Yet, the Second Amendment - "vague and poorly worded" as it is - was to my mind not the second original sin of the Constitution but the third. The second-worst mistake made by the Constitutional Convention was the "Connecticut Compromise," providing equal representation for all states in the Senate. As a result, the majority of Americans are effectively held hostage by a minority in Kansas, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, Wyoming and the other deep-red states that have few residents, but wield disproportionate power in governing the nation. Yes, without the Connecticut Compromise there might have been no United States. But with it, the United States is a permanently flawed Republic.
24
A well articulated comment and not a single invective. I'm pleased. However I'd like to note that my understanding of a classic democracy is rule by the majority. In 2016 there were five candidates,not two, and none won a majority. Are you suggesting we have run offs? The United States were formed as just that a, group of states and a Republic (not a Democracy), each sovereign over their own territory. The primary purpose of forming a federal union was common defense and currency. The Federal monstrosity we live under today is a result of mission creep. The reason it's called the Connecticut Compromise is that Connecticut, as a small state, wanted to be certain it's voice was heard among the larger states. I should remind you as well that the House is apportioned based on population, a fact serving California and New York well, and that all spending bills must originate there.
I just watched a cable re-run of Terminator last night for the heck of it after a long day. We Americans do love action movies.
But I was struck by the scene where Arnold walks into a gun store and starts ordering like he was at McDonalds... automatic shotgun, check, .45 alongside with laser sighting, check, Uzi, check....
And the store owner goes yep, mister, you sure know your guns, and he adds, "Every one of these is great for home defense."
Well, you know, it's just a movie, right?
But several store owners basically did the same damn thing with Paddock, and Paddock had no more interest in "home defense" than the Terminator did in that silly movie.
So when does the director yell "Cut" in this stupid nightmare we are living through?
17
I could not agree more. When my father returned from WWII, one of his souvenirs was a German sub-machine gun, the kind you see German soldiers toting around in war movies. The FBI came around and filled the barrel with lead. A very good idea since I would play with it as a boy. Yes, Mr. Egan, you are right.
IT'S THE 2ND AMENDMENT, STUPID!
15
I would advocate that gun owners be required to purchase liability insurance for their guns and receive mandatory licensing, training and certification for their weapons as part of the insurance process. I don't see that this is any different than car ownership, the death toll is roughly equivalent between cars and guns in this country. I personally don't own guns and don't feel I should have to defray the indirect costs of cleaning up after the 30,000 or so gun deaths in this country every year. The actuaries will also study the situation, which the CDC is largely prevented from doing by the GOP MORONS in Congress, and help devise ways to manage this public health and safety issue. The insurance companies will exert a salubrious influence on the death rate over time.
4
And yet im sure you are against showing a valid ID in order to vote on the grounds it places a barrier to one asserting his right. Car ownership is a choice. gun "rights" are not so easily taken away..
There are even more important cancers in our constitution: The electoral college that disenfranchises millions of people who live in heavily populated areas; Article Two that gives the president tremendous control over foreign affairs and war-making; parts of the 14th Amendment that permit corporations to be defined as persons; Article Three, which allows the president to choose partisan hacks for life-time appointments on the Supreme Court.
5
Washington found militias to be completely useless rabble who were more dangerous to themselves than the British, hence well regulated.
3
Since the 2nd Amendment won't be changed, firearms ownership background checks must be maximized.
2
It's alarming to see how nyt turned on one of the amendments in the bill of rights. And comparing an amendment to slavery just because you don't like it, doesn't really sound logical. What's stopping a nut job then from claiming that first amendment doesn't apply because sometimes it results in violence? Of course, we all know that pen is mightier than sword, so in that case, deal with the first amendment before the second? Does that sound like something you'll be on board with?
After all, when the First was penned it permitted people from speaking to those within the sound of the unamplified human voice and to reach as many as a hand printed newsbill could reach. It is obvious that the writers could not have anticipated the harm that could be caused by megaphones, broadcast media, national and international newspapers and (gasp) the Internet. We need to restrict the First Amendment rights to the technology the founders meant it to be.
Regulated in the 18th Century meant 'to make regular' When liberals see that word now they means we will control you. There are exactly zero legislators bought and owned by the NRA- some members might get donations but they will vote on gun issues because that is what their constituents might want. These marginal issues that seem common sense won't do anything.
1
Hold on. If you want to go back to Heller then you have to also go back to Scalia and Reagan. Scalia's radical interpretation of the Constitution, "original intent," is the so-called cancer here and it has pervaded American life well beyond fire arms. If we want to change the status quo we have to go back to Scallia's original sin. We have to have a national discussion of original intent in the face of the Necessary and Proper clause and the 9th Amendment. It could start here.
5
I take exception to your exceptionalism statement: "...setting up the United States as the most violent of developed nations."
We're slipping from the group of developed nations. Sound wrong? One sixth of our children are never sure they will have a "next meal". We work overtime to eliminate healthcare for 32 million of our people. We are in the process of cutting loose our poor, our unemployed, our old and our injured, literally saying "If you don't have money, you don't get care."
Our education is a shambles of government ideas and ideology, our employment law makes wage slaves of us all with wages perversely low.
Our most desperate live in housing run by the likes of Jared Kushner, which leaks sewage, has no heat, invites the outdoors in through ill-fitting windows and gaping holes in the ceiling, while we worship Kushner because he steals huge sums of money from...us.
People feel they need personal armories and happy-face "Get off my stoop or I"ll shoot you." stickers.
Cowering patriots acquiesce in outlandish interpretations of law and painful pretzel logic when it comes the second amendment. We have, for example, a single commenter asserting that the well regulated militia is us, individually, and we're well regulated if we say we are. Then to boost importance of that amendment, same guy points out that "well regulated militia" is the National Guard, and how can you doubt so noble an institution?
Pretzel logic. Lying cowards. Potent package.
5
the framers of the constitution are turning over in their graves as
they witness the perversion of the 2nd amendment.
1
Once we figure out how to stop the Russians from destabilizing our democracy, then we should see about electing politicians not beholden to the NRA, or Koch brothers...or the Mercers. I see Bannon has already weighed in about gun control from the Mercer perspective.
3
The sad reality is we're stuck with the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court's current interpretations of the "right to bear arms," so the ability of Congress or state legislatures to enact meaningful gun regulation -- assuming that were even possible politically -- is extremely limited. The only solution is to change cultural attitudes toward guns, and the only way to do that is through popular entertainment, much as Hollywood and television changed attitudes toward gay people in a way that seemed impossible 20-30 years ago. The entertainment industry needs to start depicting gun owners as barely-literate sexually-inadequate knuckle-dragging yokels. Repeated, consistent exposure to images that ridicule gun ownership will change attitudes.
2
Yes, mockery and ridicule has worked for the left so well you got President Trump as a prize
The historical context and justification for the Second Amendment is a situation in Olde England wherein an evil king, John probably, disarmed the rebellious English peasants thereby leaving a village in Devon, perhaps it was Somerset, helpless to resist a local incursion of dragons, maybe it was dragoons, from Cornwall.
Now that the history lesson is out of the way, let's dwell on the wording of the one-sentence Amendment, itself. The militia is the state national guards, the state and local police, and ad hoc possees. "People" rather than "persons" means responsible, recognized (i.e. deputized) individuals, not a mob of snot-nose teenagers and toothless rednecks. An "arm" is a portable device that propels a small projectile in the direction of the bearer's aim. It is used for
harvesting game, managing pests, and running off bad persons.
Taken with history and an English-language dictionary, the Second Amendment is a succinct statement of purpose, "a well-regulated militia", and method, individuals deputized to keep and bear arms.
Those who need a "philosophy" or context for interpreting the Constitution need look no further than the Preamble. The Founders' clearly state the purpose in terms a high schooler can understand, and even a Republican cannot misconstrue.
2
If there are ten proximate causes of a massacre, and preventing one of the causes is not sufficient to prevent the massacre, then what should we do?
Nothing? That’s what we’ve been doing. It obviously hasn’t worked, in fact the problem is obviously much worse.
Address one of the causes, like “bump stocks?” That’s what we’re about to do. That’s obviously not enough.
Address a few of the causes but ignore the others? Better, but again, not enough.
If there are ten causes, we should prioritize and address them all.
These massacres are proof that extreme libertarianism is a fatally flawed political philosophy.
5
The recent publication by the Times of the congressional lawmakers who received the largest contributions from the NRA was telling. First, they were all republicans and second most of them were from the South and West with the exception of the Pacific Coast states. I link slavery and guns as definers of deep regional differences in this nation. Slavery was a desperate compromise to keep the 13 colonies together to form a nation. It proved a very bad idea. When the Southern Democrats morphed into the base of the Republican Party it began the second cycle of deep division present from the earliest years of white settlement on these shores. That is our new cancer of which guns are only one piece. You mention freedom in Canada. Canada also has a political system that acknowledges regionalism, with Quebec the strongest example. Shoudn't we start looking to Canada for a better way forward?
2
Ah Mr. Egan! Sanity. You exemplify sanity.
But we are not (so to speak) dealing with sane people.
Some thoughts:
Our FOREIGN policy and our DOMESTIC policy on this matter of weapons are so utterly at odds with each other. Do people see this.
Right now, Mr. Trump has his hands full with North Korea. Soon to become a nuclear power. What to do? Nothing? Sterner sanctions? A military "first strike"? Well--that's HIS call. He's President.
My point is--we're not waiting for North Korea (any more than we waited for Iraq) to DO anything. They've already GOT the weapons and that's a concern. We don't WANT them to. We'd love to be able to take 'em away. Pull the nukes from Mr. Jung-un's plump little hands. Ah but how? Well--someone or other's WORKING on that.
At home--it's another story. There are three hundred million firearms in these United States (a figure, by the way, that blows my mind). We have little or no concern WHO might acquire these firearms. Ah well! we say (sighing and reaching for a beer)--gotta wait till some thug, some loonie actually DOES something. Can't do NOTHIN' till then.
That, Mr. Beck tells us, is the price of freedom.
CRAZY! That's CRAZY talk.
I would suggest Mr. Jung-un (wearing glasses and fake mustache) SNEAK into the United States--become a citizen--and claim his Constitutional right to "bear arms." Including "nuclear arms."
I'm betting he'd get a free pass.
3
Charlton Heston, the great American actor, once said that the only way to take away his rifle was from his "cold, dead hands". That is the attitude of Republican lawmakers and the powerful NRA. Both groups cling to the Second Amendment right as gospel to insist on the right of American citizens to bear arms, even if there is no immediate threat of danger to them or their families.
To the colonists and militia during the American Revolution, the right to bear arms was the price of freedom, and it paid off. It made sense then but it does not today. It's just too bad that the GOP and gun rights advocates don't get it.
4
In a little over 200 years do you think human nature or attitude has changed such that the right to keep and bear arms is no longer the price of freedom? The weaponry may have changed but not human nature.
1
Our author may be a lot of things, but on thing he clearly isn't, is a Constitutional scholar.
In fact, the founders would have supported the possession by the average citizen, of whatever weaponry would put them on an even level with opposing infantry forces.
Had AK-47's been in existence at the time, they would have supported individual possession of fully automatic M16's.
4
As we do--in the National Guard armories along with the tanks. Our militia is well-armed.
The 2nd amendment begins by referring to a well-regulated militia because the states that had to ratify the constitution wanted their right to have state militias intact. This was not an effort to empower individual everyday Americans -- most legislators were elite landowners with no desire to give power to the average citizen (nor could many of those average citizens vote). If there had been AK-47s, the states would have wanted to the right to keep them in their armories, but there isn't anything to suggest they'd have wanted every day citizens to have them.
Tim, it is a no brainier that the idea behind the "second Amendment" was to keep a well trained militia at arms length for our newly crowned leaders only because our so called army those days were not so highly trained like they're now with M-16 and other assault weapons,which we all want our soldiers to have to kill our enemies.
But this cancer to our Constitution called 'second Amendment' has been totally hijacked by the mass slaughter loving N.R.A.
Just to encourage every Americans to carry a gun in case they're invaded by the house invaders and muggers and killers,N.R.A. has deliberately spread the cancer to any crazed individuals like Stephen Paddock who took full advantage by passing every background checks made easy by N.R.A. through their Republican lawmakers who never put a limit on how many semi-automatic guns a butcher like in Las Vegas can own which he used to mow down hundreds of Country Music loving concert goers.
Actually, the only thing that these Republican lawmakers and their N.R.A. appeasing president Trump are trying to do is to ban only the 'bump stocks' that this butcher used to fire hundreds of rounds by converting his semi-automatic weapons.
But what these crooked Republicans and their low-life president Trump are not trying to do is ban all the assault weapons,including the semi-automatic guns which Paddock still could use to kill 58+ concert goers.
It seems like N.R.A. has these Republicans and their President by holding onto their lower proximity.
8
When the Second Amendment was written, one had to bring one’s own weaponry ( mainly musket) to the well- regulated militia. Now, all such equipment is generously provided the United States Government. Hence the Second Amendment would, upon any rational interpretation, be rendered obsolete. Yet, we treat it as the spoken word of God
19
The twisted logic of the right to bear arms is endless. If most Americans who actually think about the U.S. Constitution ascribe some progressive thinking to the men who wrote the constitution back in the 18th century, why would we or they read the 2nd Amendment the same way today as it might have been read when they wrote it? If most of those men were progressive in their thinking, hoping that their document would guide the birth and progress of a country for centuries to come, it is not much of a stretch to think that their progressive thinking would look at today's USA and wonder why the Government tolerates the violence brought upon its own people by the widespread ownership of such lethal tools. Why do we think that those bright men would have stopped thinking and wishing for a better country for themselves and the generations that followed? While they were not able to address slavery and rid it, they did pursue a path that eventually resulted in a country that so many from abroad hoped to reach or wished for themselves elsewhere.
4
because the founding fathers had a terrible contempt for federal government and knew armed citizens was the only way to ensure the we remained a free nation.
America did not “enshrine an entire race of people as three-fifths of a human being.” The “Three-Fifths Compromise” reduced the political clout of slave states by counting only three-fifths of the slave population for the purpose of proportional representation in the House of Representatives. It gave slave states fewer seats than they would have had if slaves had been counted the same as free persons and prevented the slave states from dominating the House of Representatives. It was an anti-slavery measure that did not apply to race. The free black population counted the same as the free white population.
2
You've got it backwards. It gave slaves states more seats by counting those without rights as part of the population
Mr. Case, slaves were considered property, as in "chattel." They had no human rites because of their station. The 3/5 compromise was not an anti-slavery measure; it was, if anything,a pro-slavery measure, since it conferred Congressional power in the form of representation--and hence members of the Hosue of Representatives-- upon the slave states. Where do you get this information and interpretation?
The author shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment, a common trait among the left-leaning anti gun crowd that has posted here. There is no "cancer in the constitution", rather a decline in morality and mental stability metastasizing through society. The reflexive response is to blame guns, blame the NRA, and blame the millions of law abiding gun owners. Deranged folks like the Vegas madman will find a way, whether it's a legally purchased firearm or driving a truck through a crowd, to perpetrate their mayhem. Responding by relinquishing our precious rights may make you feel like you've done something, but actually you've only managed to reduce our freedoms provided and defended by the many brave men and women who fought and died for them.
22
Murder rates are lower than they've ever been--and far lower than in revolutionary times. So your argument about a decline in society is just factually wrong. No reason not to take the next step and leave the military guns with the National Guard (i.e. our well regulated militia).
1
It is you that misunderstands the 2nd Amendment. It was not written to give citizens unfettered rights to own guns. It was included at the behest of slave states who feared a standing army for the purpose of national defense would leave them defenseless in a slave uprising. When Ronald Reagan, fearful of large numbers of militant African Americans with access to guns instituted gun controls in California, no one said it was unconstitutional. It wasn't until the NRA became a mouthpiece for the gun industry that the 2nd Amendment suddenly was interpreted to give every adult access to as many guns as they wanted that the "right" became sacrosanct to so many. When I was growing up, the only people who had guns were people who hunted for subsistence.
No one blames law abiding gun owners for this carnage, but many of us want sensible regulation. Gun owners should be licensed and be required to demonstrate they know how to use guns safely. Guns should be heavily taxed at point of sale and subject to annual taxes. We require this of drivers of motor vehicles, Why not gun owners? We can't prevent specific mass shootings, but we can certainly take measures that make them less likely. We know this worked in Australia which has plenty of rugged individualists. The difference? Australia has no NRA to stoke citizens' fears and encourage more and more gun purchases.
So is it only in the United States that this decline in morality and mental stability has taken place since no other country has our level of gun violence?
Or is it only in those states that have more lenient gun laws that have seen the decline since states with more restrictive gun laws have demonstrably few gun deaths?
1
Mr. Egan and the NYT,
Thank you for this important piece. I agree with all but this statement:
"...you have to see it now as the second original sin in the founding of this country, after slavery."
The FIRST original sin in the founding of this country is the government funded, sanctioned, and actions of genocide of native peoples on this continent.
This country - which still uses racist stereotypes of native people in naming of sports teams from elementary schools to professional baseball - must stop erasing the violent history of the "settling" of the country WITH GUNS by simple and inexcusable omission. This includes the New York Times and the estimable Tim Egan.
83
Slavery is original sin? Seriously?
Slavery existed since the ancient times. It was only in the 18th century in Great Britain that anyone began to say that the institution was inherently wrong.
The Second Amendment is the second original sin? Seriously?
The right to self defense is a natural right as King George III discovered when he sent troops to disarm his subjects at Lexington and Concord.
The Second Amendment merely codified what already existed.
Perhaps the Founders anticipated slick lawyers and journalists who did not believe in natural rights only government rights.
4
Mr, Egan,
How do you know what the Founders intended with respect to today's weapons?
Did you participate in a seance with Madison and Hamilton?
Our cousins across the Pond have lost their ability to defend themselves. It did not happen overnight. It came about after one sensible restriction after another was introduced over a century. The Englishman is now a serf in his own nation.
We Patriots are determined not to allow people like you to disarm us on your way to a socialist utopia.
3
Its not unreasonable to have at least equal firepower to that of an intruder or threat. Semi automatic weapons with high capacity magazines are commonplace now.. If you want to debate the need for bump stocks or other modifications we can do that..
With a little diligence on your part, you could easily find the writings of jefferson, hamilton etc that would clearly indicate they intended an armed citizenship.
1
The comments of people like O'Reilly are no longer relevant. Why does anyone care about what he has to say? Just another angry, old white guy, who panders to the prejudices of his supporters.
1
Thomas Jefferson argued in some of his letters that the Constitution should be rewritten (not just amended) by each new generation. At the time, he reckoned that meant every 19 years. He believed that legislators could not possibly foresee the changes the future would bring and that our basic laws should be able to reflect the needs of the times. For exactly the reasons Timothy Egan made here. It’s a pity Jefferson was in Paris while the Constitution was being hammered out in 1789 in Philadelphia; he was in Paris at the time. Because they were erudite men of reason, Jefferson and the founders would be appalled to see what the future has wrought today. Had he been able to press his case and enabled the Constitution to be a living document, a permanent work in progress, the 2nd Amendment (not to mention the Electoral College) would have died a natural death a long time ago.
To make tomorrow better Authentic Citizens of the USA must to write postcards, send faxes and call elected officials to express their position on this and all issues the effect our national security. Nothing get done by virtue signaling opinions. A democratic citizenship requires participation. Everybody should ask them selves "What concrete, measurable actions have I taken to effect the change in the world I believe will benefit my grandchildren?"
The 'founding fathers' would consider us 'profoundly stupid' for 1) pretending they were prescient geniuses who anticipated ever conceivable advancement in the 240 years since wring the Constitution, and 2) would probably ask, as more than one dissenting Justice has over the years , 'Can't you read!', the preamble to the Amendment quite expressly states, we allowed for this in anticipation of a need for 'State militias'', a need that has been obviated by local and state police, state and federal national guard, and the four branches of the United States military.
I weep.
The Whiskey Rebellion is not a reflection of the cancers in our Constitution. It reflects the need of getting grain to market on the part of farmers far from population centers. It is much easier to haul a barrel of whiskey to market than wagons of wheat under constant attack by mice, rats and other vermin. Moonshine, here we come. It is an on-going activity.
The main cancer on the Constitution is the provision of two senators for each state--regardless of population. It will not be cured until a whole bunch of Midwest states are consolidated into one. The fight over the meaning of the second amendment is the equivalent of a common cold. We no longer have frontier from which the wagon trains will roll.
1
The "problem" with the second amendment is simply a fundamental misreading of the grammar. The "right to bear arms" language is a subordinate clause to the "well regulated militia" language. It does not stand alone. There is no unfettered right to bear arms. And that "well regulated militia" is in turn purposed as necessary for the order and security of the state.
In other words, the police. The national guard. The coast guard. The armed forces. That's it. Not jumped up preppers, not "stand your ground" vigilantes, not -- let's face it -- paranoid bigoted white folks.
Never thought I'd be grateful for my sixth grade grammarian English teacher, with her endless sentence diagrams, but here I am, wishing others had been to school with her. Supremes, havevyou had grammar?
2
you mean all the things that didnt exist at the time, were surely the institutions the founders intended to have arms.. I dont think so.. All we had at the time were citizens who would stop their lives to serve a purpose. THEY were the militia.. ordinary citiznes like you and me..
Yep, except for guns, the persistent fall-out from slavery, and the ludicrous health system, the US is a great country.
Automatic weapons are illegal in the US, except in some very limited conditions. The conversion of any weapon into an automatic weapon should also be illegal. All we need is a definitional:
automatic weapon - a firearm that reloads itself and keeps firing until the trigger is released.
Let’s not get caught up in a debate on bump-stocks or any other tool. Make all tools illegal. Manufacture or possesion of such a device should have the punishment of a life-time ban on ownership or possesion of any guns.
1
The intended purpose of a bump stock was to assist one with debilitating conditions that would otherwise limit their ability to pull the trigger.. Thats how they got them past the ATF.. I have 2, they came with paperwork from the ATF explaining their legality and they recommended keeping that paperwork when the bump stock was used in case of a froggy lawman.
What is interesting is the more guns people own and the more powerful those weapons are, the higher the death toll. This well armed citizenry was supposed to prevent crime, not make it worse. According to Jeff Sessions, crime is everywhere. It is a cancer on our society. Yet we have more and more guns. Why aren't the well armed taking a bite out of crime? And where did all these high powered weapons come from? Compliments of the US military. They were developed for war after all. And as a result of all the military weapons in society, the military has to offer their surplus war machinery to the cities to deal with the well armed citizens. Where does it all end? I guess when a guy like Paddock is taken out by an officer on the street with a grenade launcher. Because let's face it, the tools the police have are no longer up to the task. That should make you feel safer.
I don't know how many Original Sins a society can have but
if it can have more than one then America has:
First - Slaughter of Native Americans.
Second - Slavery of Native Americans and African Americans.
Third - A Constitution written by and for the Elites.
Fourth - A Federal Judiciary that is unbounded in power
and allows lifetime - un-reviewable and practically un - answerable
appointments.
Fifth - The Second and other Amendments/Clauses that are too vague.
No public citizen needs a semi-automatic weapon.
No one needs a pistol or rifle that can hold more than 4 bullets.
No one needs high velocity cartridges.
Congress can easily pass laws dealing with the above
why they don't do so,
is the First Original Sin of Congress
and the blood of the little children slaughtered at the school in Newton
and the blood of those slaughtered since
drips from their hands.
3
It is time to separate the wing nuts who want to run this country like their own fascist state from those areas that contribute far bigger tax revenues, have a sizably greater percentage of the population and produce more well paying jobs from innovative companies. Let the Northeast and West Coast states secede to form more secure, stable countries with vibrant economies.
The others can wallow in their Trumpist society where they can rant amongst themselves.
3
The Second Amendment today has blazoned latent anger and insecurity among the American people. You are right, Tim Egan, that unlimited freedom to buy, sell, use guns to kill innocent human beings is `the cancer in our Constitution`. That said, what is the remedy? Carnage (as Bill O`Reilly, the Fake News purveyor, said), is NOW the price of freedom. We the people are paying for death by snipers and demented shooters who own arsenals of weapons. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt restricted sales of sawed-off shotguns and machine guns in 1934. Whomever becomes our President following Donald Trump`s catastrophic reign (soon, we pray), will bring the National Firearms Act up to date, and far more draconian. Our democracy is terminal because of the obsolete and obscene Second Amendment. All the beautiful sounding names of massacre sites in America in the latter days - Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, a Phoenix Safeway, `Mother` Emmanuel Church, Mandalay Bay, Las Vegas - are infamous bloody killing fields by demented shooters with unlimited access to weapons blessed by the Second Amendment . The question is - can anger and violence by the dispossessed Americans in our sick society be outlawed, Tim Egan?
1
you think the 2nd amendment makes us an angry nation ? Thats the longest stretch of imagination ive heard lately.. I agree we are becoming an angry, less tolerant people, But I think we surely would disagree as to why..
"...we’re no longer a healthy democracy, thanks to the cancer that has grown out of the Constitution."
It is not only a cancer grown out of the Constitution alone, but also from redistricting and gerrymandering. While a majority of Americans believe in sensible legislation on firearms, the GOP Congress (undemocratic as it is) has not seen it fit to address the concerns of a majority of Americans.
3
define sensible legislation.. Thats where your argument runs off the tracks.. FACT is we have sensible gun laws that arent enforced.. When you start talking about prohibition, your public support sharply falls to little to none.
Guns should be allowed in every legislative chamber in the U.S. including county, state & federal. All legislators home addresses should be published. Maybe when our legislators & their families are subject to being randomly shot as their constituents are we may see a change in gun laws.
2
Why are we even talking about the Second Amendment? Changes to the Second Amendment might be necessary if we had a Congress busily passing gun control laws only to see them struck down by the Supreme Court.
Wouldn't that be a nice problem to have?
The senseless slaughter of people each year in these horrific acts are simply the cost of doing business to the NRA and it's supporters. Hard to understand how it enhances one's sense of self worth to brandish a weapon. Just how many weapons does one have to purchase to feel secure? Takes all kinds I suppose.
Now it is the fault of Hollywood. The NRA says that there is a "glorification of gun violence". Simply restrict those types of movies rather than restrict Military weapons for use on the street.
The solution to the "cancer" is the radical surgery suggested by one of your colleagues writing for the NY Times yesterday: Repeal the Second Amendment.
What need in our time do we have for "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."? We have U.S. military forces (army, navy, marines, air force, coast guard) and state police forces available to do the work of a militia in providing for "the security of a free State."
The intention of the Second Amendment was never to give the right carry a weapon of war to those who would not be serving in ""A well regulated Militia." The Second Amendment is no longer needed. Those wanting to "bear arms" can join the military or a police force.
1
Agree mostly. But the cancer has grown from intentional misreading of the Constitution by Supreme Court justices that are biased in favor of guns.
It is the same justices that intentionally warped the Constitution into saying that money is free speech and therefore puts a blessing on the NRA and other billionaires to secretly buy elections not by electing candidates but by making sure that NRA supporters are the only candidates running. That Citizens United decision is one of the prime reasons that the NRA has been so successful at electing candidates that have perverted the gun laws -- even support for Presidents who nominate Supreme Court justices who have done the damage.
2
So many lives are unwillingly lost to gunfire in this country. It would seem that the inspiring phrase from the Declaration of Independence about the unalienable rights of human beings to strive for “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” has been superseded by the Second Amendment.
2
gun deaths are a ridiculously low number of total deaths.. Most are suicide.. You assume these deaths dont happen without guns.. I think you know that to be untrue..
1
I take umbrage at your use of the words “ridiculously low.” Moreover, I did not say that homicides by guns were a leading cause of death, but that there are many lives unwillingly lost each year. The latest statistics from the CDC, tallied in 2014, cite 11,008 homicides caused by guns. (Put another way, that number represents more than half the population of the town I live in). Of the 42,826 suicides that year, 21,386 were caused by guns. There were 33,594 accidental deaths caused by firearms. As for other causes of death, I made no such assumptions.
The second amendment has nothing to do with it. Any reasonable restriction on gun ownership--that is, short of completely outlawing them--is perfectly legal under the 2nd amendment. High capacity magazines can be outlawed, assault weapons can be outlawed or their designs restricted, guns can be registered, owners can be licensed., restrictions on pistol ownership can be imposed. Some states do all of these. The problem is the power of the NRA. And the desire of large numbers of citizens to own guns--regardless of the purpose that they will be used for.
1
The Cancer isn't in the Constitution.
The Cancer is in Congress and, ultimately, is in us if not enough of us unite to elect Representatives who are willing to enact reasonable gun regulations.
How many of us must die until that happens?
Does it take the gun death of your loved one before you stand up against the gun lobby and those Representatives who have pledged allegiance not to our Country, but to the United States of Armed and Dangerous?
142
I've had friends and loved ones die who made an oath to uphold the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Where do their deaths and sacrifice fall? The dustbin of history?
More of us regularly vote against this insanity than for it but the system is set up to put the losers in power. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote handily but lost the election. Redistricting plays a large roll in keeping guns on our streets and of course huge amounts of money in politics.Nowhere else in the modern world.
Prevention. Anti-gun folks keep harping on some magical way to prevent this like we live in a Minority Report sci-fi fantasy world. How specifically do you propose we prevent something like Las Vegas? I really want to know. Short of the government sending armed squads into every home and building in America and forcibly taking the hundreds of millions of guns in existence, how are you going to PREVENT a shooting event happening? Even if you could somehow magically do this without creating a civil war, how do you then prevent someone from building a bomb and detonating it in a crowded venue killing even larger numbers? Look, we all hate when these horrific tragedies occur and we are saddened and sickened by the loss of innocent life. But please apply some logic to your appeals. There is NO law that can be written that will prevent a person from planning the murder of one person or 100. A person intent on killing people will just find a different tool to use if the easier, more convenient tool isn't available. That's just t he sad truth in the equation. We can't regulate thought.
The Second Amendment, Mr. Egan, is indeed the "flaw in the plan."
Every sane American who has a stake in a civil and safe society has probably sat down and imagined what The Founders were thinking when they set down this absurdity on the eternal parchment that has determined our way forward. Did the framers throw up their hands after hours of endless argument? Were there enough citizens who could afford firearms? And was this "well-regulated militia" a sort of national guard at the time, on call for local or national emergencies?
I do not believe, for a moment, that could those slave-holding delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia that quarter-millennium ago would have set down the tortured, endlessly open-to-interpretation that the clause(s) allow could they have imagined the slaughter of innocent children or dancers or concert-goers 250 years later. For all their bloviation about freedom while denying it to black people, I'm more than confident that they would have scrubbed the Amendment clean off their books or have taken the time to eliminate the lethality that it has so obviously and openly embraced.
How does open carry guarantee one's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" when the gun owner's "rights" come uppermost in the Amendment's endless interpretations and invitations to gratuitous violence?
And, of course, Republicans, those moral guardians of America, were ever on the watchtower for cracks in the veneer of our freedoms.
"One of the great disconnects of our history..." My mind immediately went to the disconnect between that which is real and tangible and that which is imaginary and thus intangible - the myth of God and the unreal/miraculous that goes with it. The Framers did their best to separate the two in the Constitution. But most Americans do not get that!, seemingly impervious to reason that beckons and beckons.
That is the The Great Disconnect!
Out of this chaos ensues, none more scandalous than the misinterpretation of the Second Amendment!
Uh ... what? I'm a speed-reader and I think the writer said something about guns. What about guns? We all want newer products to be better, faster and cheaper. Should guns be any different? My friends now want "bump stocks," whatever that is, and some want to rent the rooms used by that Vegas firearms advocate. I'm confused. What is a militia anyway? I've been around a while and I've never seen a militia. Have I? And I've seen pornography but I've never seen a bump stock or whatever. The film Idiocracy didn't feature mass shootings so maybe America will be fine in our less intelligent future. What? This article was about Amendments? I thought it was guns but I napped through most of it. What is going on? Are some old people like the Vegas 2nd Amendment practitioner trying to force closure to our Vietnam murderous rage? Or simply re-imagining it for those of us too young to have enjoyed the days of meeting friendly but suspicious foreigners, then shooting them, their kin and their farm animals? I need, I suspect, another nap. Maybe when I awake America and its leaders will be sane again.
1
Somewhere, Antonin Scalia is laughing.
The founders could never have anticipated that we would reach a point where our Congress is so gutless that they would rather allow citizens to be gunned down then incur the wrath of the NRA, gun manufacturers, and gun owners who think their rights are more important than our right to not die.
As Bret Stephens wrote yesterday, real the Second Amendment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html
1
Egan doesn't comprehend history, nor does he comprehend plain English. Or logic.
The Founding Fathers had no knowledge of radio, movies, TV, the Internet, or e-books. According to Egan's logic, the First Amendment has no jurisdiction over these forms of expression and is therefore a "cancer".
Egan also has zero knowledge of history. The founders understood well that the conclusive attack upon the colonists was their government's attempt to disarm them. The founders saw this for what it was: A government, violating its own laws against its citizens, intent upon ensuring those same citizens could not prevent future violations with force. In other words: A tyranny. Which is what Egan is apparently hoping for.
Mr Egan, your venting against the current POTUS is noted, but you want this POTUS to disarm Americans and keep all the guns to himself? Or are you hoping a Progressive Tyrant comes to power next?
2
We are "the most violent of developed nations." And that is because, in many people's vision, we are still a country living in the past. The 20th and 21st centuries and the accompanying modernization have escaped many. And as Obama famously said "many cling to their guns or religion" as a child clings to a pacifier. This is their way of holding on to a lost period even as the world around them is changing and evolving. Obama had to apologize for purely political reasons, but he did hit on the underlying truth.
2
The Second Amendment has become nothing more than a sick excuse for people who have a "thing for guns," to justify what is either a hobby or some twisted paranoia that the U.S. will soon descend into anarchy and you need unlimited firepower to stave off attackers. If my description of having "a thing for guns" seems inaccurate or unfair, go to a gun show and see how excited and fired up all those people get looking over the weapons, handling them, and thinking about the prospect of further adding to what may be an already substantial stockpile of deadly arms.
The Supreme Court in the 2008 Heller case said "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." How many of the 30,000 annual deaths in the U.S. from wounds inflicted by gunshots fit the category of lawful purposes or self-defense? Also, note that the Supreme Court ruling said "firearm" in the singular.
This seems worse than a cancer, because at least some cancers can be cured. The debate over gun control has dragged on for decades under both Democrat and Republican administrations, and in the end nothing gets done about it. The rest of the world watches this endless stream of senseless killing of innocent people by its own citizens, and just shakes its collective head in disbelief.
Earth to media wake me when the Republicans pass bill banning
bump stocks. until then it's all noise and pretense
The massacre in Vegas laid waste to every NRA talking point.
If you want to fire an assault weapon enlist.
1
The real cancer in the Constitution is the lack of clarity regarding campaign finance. What would normally be regarded as bribery is now legalized by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United and McKutcheon decisions. These actions have hastened America's slide toward authoritarian plutocracy.
We will be faced with another cancer if the Supreme Court rules in favor of companies requiring people sign away their right to sue as a condition of employment.
Antonin Scalia was a brilliant advocate for total deregulation of guns. He was supposed to be a justice. He violated his own "principles" when he chose. The supposed "original text" advocate ignored the first portion of the second amendment in the Heller case. Scalia is a clear case of judicial activism. He liked guns, so we all have to put up with the massacres and the unreported suicides.
Hunters use shotguns on birds and rifles on game. A grouse shot with an AR-15 can't be eaten. A skillful hunter needs one shot, not 30.
Sport shooters don't shoot targets with M-16's. Ripping out the center of a target with 30 rounds awards no points in the President's Cup. Seeing each hole in the center of the bulls eye is the entire point.
Semi-automatic and automatic guns have only one purpose, carnage.
It is time for the gun owners to put aside their Rambo fantasies and push the lobbying groups to eliminate the large capacity guns.
217
John, I would give this comment 5 stars if I could.
I'll sign up once congress recognizes the lie and betrayal of the Hart-Celler act and restores european political, cultural, and genetic hegemony.
Amazing that a country with so many well-paid eggheads in its universities cannot recognize 'the right to bear arms shall not be infringed' as a dependent clause to what comes before it.
Maybe THIS time the spineless NRA shills called Congressfolk can perhaps do something?? Nah...didn't think so.
2
I think people worship guns more than they worship God. There is no realization of a god-like image in the world that would condone the blood letting that has become an almost every day experience for Americans. What strikes me is that so many of these strutting, gun toting, tattooed people with slogans - almost like human sandwich boards- think it's imperative to sling a rifle over their shoulders in order to walk into a Starbuck's an buy a cappuccino. Or go shopping at the mall with a holstered gun. All I can think of when I see these pictures, is how impotent most of these people must feel. Their "power" draws not from achievement, strong relationships, education or hard work, even though they may be hard workers or well educated; their psyches demand that they show their power and sexual prowess, brandish it, scare people and draw attention to themselves. It's a sexualized fetish that automatically empowers its users (or they they think it does) It's like a chest thumping gorilla, actually, because in their souls, most of them are just scared little boys and girls.
7
It really is very easy to see what the founding fathers had in mind when they wroth the 2nd amendment. It has been thrown off by the Heller case and then the greed of gun makers, after all if it wasn't for the people stockpiling guns and ammo they would be out of business unless the army buys their guns. At this point guns are here to stay however I vote for background checks, waiting periods and no large magazines. What was the supreme court thinking???
2
We can always create a Second Amendment motto: "My Gun- My Militia".
IMHO the shackles to modern day gun violence carnage were released when Bush 43 let the assault weapon ban under the Brady Bill expire. Or better said, when the NRA told Congress to let it lapse.
It is painfully obvious that since then Congress is incapable of putting that genie back in the bottle. Mr. Egan, your description of a cancer is so appropriate, for cancer, while sometimes curable, is still a stealthy killer.
3
Gun owners hiding behind the Second Amendment remind me of fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, etc. There's no room for discussion because there's no room for interpretation other than fundamentalist's interpretation. Scripture was written by God and cannot be questioned while the Second Amendment was written by the founding fathers and cannot be questioned or changed. The latter is viewed as a license to own any firearm at any time.
3
We do have a well-regulated militia - the National Guard. I suggest the gun lovers join up and do something of value for your country.
2
A lot of "gun lovers" serve or served in the police and army.
1
It is a profound argument against “originalist” interpretations of the Constitution that 200 years hence, the United States would have the most powerful army in the world and a standing militia called the National Guard, making the intent of the Second Amendment moot, and the unforeseeable result that greedy gun makers would cultivate citizen ownership of advanced, non-hunting firearms resulting in an annual civilian death toll equal to that of 1790’s New York City (33,000.)
2
I find it mind boggling & incredibly hypocritical that Egan doesn't mention gang related gun violence. That's where the majority of violent gun deaths are occurring. In our inner cities. That's something we can address right now. That's something we could possibly fix. Why is this never part of our national conversation on gun control. In Chicago last year over 700 people died in gang related deaths. They're on track to equal those numbers this year. Here, in the biggest city in the American heartland, teens murder each other over Twitter beefs. Grown men shoot children in the head. Sometimes by accident, sometimes on purpose. Police say roughly 90 percent of this gun violence, flows from gangs. Over the past 18 months, there has been an explosion of Chicago violence not seen in almost 20 years. In August, 90 people were killed. It’s as if Chicago pulled its firefighters off a massive blaze & now residents are watching the flames engulf the entire city. Why are we not talking about this? Instead Egan focuses on lone nut murders which are unfortunately impossible to predict & therefore impossible to stop. We could ban all rifle sales tonight & there will still be mentally ill people like Stephen Paddock committing murders...as depressing as that is to contemplate. Meanwhile the violent deaths in our urban cities will continue everyday....every single day. This is emblematic of our nationwide delusion about where the real problem of gun violence lies. Very disappointing column.
29
Thank you for the reminder about gun deaths from gang violence. And yes, we could do something about this, but attempts to curb such misuse of guns here have resulted in huge protests from gun owners who fear their 2nd amendment rights would be curtailed. The NRA has supported them.
Your comment does not address what I thought was a critical central point of Mr. Egan's column: lawmakers stopped making laws to match the technological advances of weaponry. If we passed laws about gun ownership that took current weapons technology as its starting point, as well as the ease of procurement of weapons that was not available when the 2nd amendment was added, we could likely address both gang violence and the gun deaths from mass shootings...like all other devleoped countries in the world have done. We will not eliminate all gun deaths--but if we told the loved ones of those killed in LasVegas, or any of the other tragic mass shootings, that an amended 2nd amendment could have prevented the deaths of even some of their loved ones, how do you think they would vote?
2
The gun violence in Chicago is indeed horrendous. I do not, however, see this as an either-or issue.
1
No Bill, they are not impossible to stop if we severely restrict ownership of all semi-automatic weapons. They are only impossible if you ignore that no civilian should be able to own one.
1
A clear purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that there would not be a preferred class of people -- a nobility -- with special powers to govern and control. Several colonies had generalized the right to keep and bear and the Second, as originally adopted, secured those rights from impingement by the federal government. After the Civil War the right was upheld in favor of those recently emancipated who faced incipient violence from their neighbors and local authority. This is not to say that the right cannot be organized and regulated, as in a well regulated militia. But it is a personal right nonetheless.
1
It is appalling that America's newspaper of record has attacked and seeks to destroy the Constitution of the United States, labeling one of the Rights in the Bill of Rights a "cancer."
The campaign to terminate the Second Amendment is nothing less than an attempt to disenfranchise the 1/3 of America that owns guns.
Viewed in light of this newspaper's open support for silencing all speech with which it disagrees, it is apparent that The New York Times is a collective reincarnation of King George III.
3
You may be correct in that the 2nd Amendment itself is not the cancer; the cancer is the fetishism and hysteria of certain gun owners, a point which you have made quite clearly in your comment. Reasonable people interpret the 2nd in a reasonable way, given the myriad ways in which our society and our technology have advanced over the last 200+ years. Was it an attack on the constitution to abolish slavery or enfranchise African Americans? No? Could it be that our constitution, as principled and forward-thinking as it was at the time, was not perfect? That is the point Egan is trying to make. And since we are on the topic, the 1st does not prohibit newspapers from criticizing speech; it merely prevents the government from doing so.
1
You're the one who wants to silence all speech with which you disagree. And you missed the whole point: that the 2nd Amendment is being interpreted in a what it was NOT meant. Not only that . . . no one is trying to stop you from owning a gun. And no one is trying to abolish the 2nd Amendment. All we who are tired of the carnage want is for the amendment to be sanely interpreted and applied. You need to stop listening to the lies of the NRA.
1
REGARDING, "The Cancer in the Constitution" Correction FRANK ...
The COLUMN seeks to UPHOLD the founder's meaning or the 2nd amendment of the US constitution. I agree with it and with CANADA and ENGLAND.
1
The key to the 2nd Amendment is "militia." Familiarity with the negotiations of the framers shows that in order to pass the constitution the South insisted that their militias had to be preserved. The South's militias were created to keep the slaves from rebelling. Thus, the South's militias were the price.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS conservatives were either ignorant of history or they wanted individuals to have the right. Welcome to Las Vegas...and Newtown...and...
139
The militia system was seem as the logical way to provide national defense without keeping a standing army. The Framers called standing armies "the grand engine of oppression." So they empowered states to have militias to call up to national service in emergencies.
None of that logic applies in 2017.
Absolute nonsense. The 2nd Amendment, like the entire Bill of Rights, was premised on the idea of preserving INDUVIDUAL RIGHTS considered God-given. Hanging one's hat on the mention of militias, which from the start of the Revolutionary War were separate from the regular Continental army and comprised of volunteers, ignores the second and more forceful phrase that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." One really can't get clearer than that and one can't ignore the context under which the entire BOR was created. They are all negative rights in the sense that they outline what the government may not do and may not infringe upon. Any other interpretation opens the entire BOR to scrutiny. Harry Reid already proposed altering the 1st Amendment to give government authority over political speech. As with the statues and memorials issue now, the path this leads to is a place no one can predict and will have many bad outcomes.
1
From Sweden I learn something new about Southern history. Yes I'm sure we had to compromise with the South on the 2nd amendment to get the constitution passed, just as we had to allow slaves to be counted 3/5th of a person so the more rural South could have more representation in the Electoral College. Since moving from NE to NC I have come to realize how insane the South truly is. Always has been and always, I'm afraid, will be. And how they just love guns. I was stopped 'dead in my tracks' when I passed a magazine rack and spied "Gardens and Guns". Now there's a magazine every one in the South can love. And some keep waving the Confederate flag, the flag of would be traitors to the United States of America.
The USA has become a commerce-ocracy.
As President Coolidge said “the chief business of the American people is business.” This was back in 1925. As a reaction to the Great Depression and later, in order to protect the rights (the lives!) of consumers, laws were enacted and agencies set up to restrict business.
This is being reversed. Also when it comes to firearms. The NRA no longer carries out the wishes of its more thoughtful members (the majority, I'm sure). No, it is beholden to the gun manufacturers and has taken to using its clout to cajole, bully or outright buy politicians, not with the aim of making gun ownership and its recreational use safe or responsible, but in order to open up the market as widely as it will go. If that means that dozens of people are shot every so often, this pales in comparison to the profits that are being made. Business booms, if you pardon the pun, so it must be the right thing to do.
Nothing will change. No sufficiently large body of lawmakers can be found to modify the law. As I wrote elsewhere, even if that were to happen, how about the estimated 300.000.000 firearms already in homes across the country, with the accompanying billions of rounds of ammunition? And, if it were to happen, how about the surge in gun-buying that would undoubtedly and inevitably be triggered by the mere threat of restrictions?
As with North Korea, you are close to creating a situation where no sane options remain.
42
In the whole history of man, until now, guns have never been solely recreationally used equipment. Oh back in colonial days men got together to see who was the most accurate, shoot the farthest, kill the most game (which in those days was an important source of calories). But, those times were few & far between because lead & powder cost too much to waste for no gain. We don’t need to shoot our major source of calories. But the per person numbers of guns keeps growing. So again, why did the Founding Fathers find it necessary to write the 2nd Amendment? Guns were everywhere, no permits needed, carry what you had anytime & just leave them in the vestibule on the way into church. They saw a time when guns would not be so necessary (from attacks, for food). They saw a time when those we elect might not be good for the country, may even be overtly trying to destroy it. Elections don’t save countries with these types of regimes. Dictators rule with iron fists, end elections altogether, or make themselves the only ones who can declare winners. Once that time comes the rule of law is dead, only the rule of armies can save a country. So, they gave us the Obligation to revolt at such a time, then the 2nd Amendment, not to give us the right to PLAY with guns, but to have them, raise NON governmental militias & fight for our country. We have twice. The Revolution, & the Civil War. The time for the 3rd, if congress remains cowards, is almost upon us. We the People MUST fight!
The reason the no-fly-list ban is a bad idea is because we don't have a practice of abridging constitutional rights without due process. It's really just that simple.
As for control legislation in general, we all know that anyone can make statistics do their dirty work. This WaPo article, which has gotten lots of mileage, could help or harm that argument. https://goo.gl/udgwGs
I agree the NRA has created a stone wall. But I also don't believe outright bans a la the UK or Oz are the answer. As the article points out, if we can also work towards treating the heart and the head, there'll be fewer people who feel the need to pull the trigger.
5
Your argument holds no water. Gun technology and pervasiveness in our society statistically guarantees that the US will have 20-30X higher rates of gun homicides. Automobile regulations have evolved constantly as the prevalence and capabilities of Autos increased, so should gun regulations. If gun regulations are to be left as they were in 1776, then people should have the right to bear one shot, muzzle loaders, not semi-automatic weapons easily upgraded to automatic, and high capacity ammo clips.
"Work toward treating the heart and the head", sure by taking away controls to keep those ADJUDICATED to be SEVERELY MENTALLY ILL.
It's just way too easy to use the efficient and effective killing capability of modern semi-automatic weapons. Reduce their numbers in our society and it WILL reduce the number of gun deaths.
Meanwhile then GOP consistently cuts funding for mental health and addiction treatment. Using that as a solution to the gun CRISIS in this nation is cutting off one hand in the process.
But wouldnt a program that treats both the heart and the head be a greater threat to our freedoms than the inability to own a weapon of mass destruction?
If Paddock had a lesson he wanted to teach us in the Las Vegas massacre, maybe it was that ANYONE can do this. He had no mental or legal impediments to prevent him from stockpiling weapons and ammunition. Therefore, we have to change our thinking from preventing certain people from carrying out a Newtown or Pulse or San Bernardino, to prevent anyone from being able to do so. True freedom would be to go to a movie or mall, concert or ball game and not worry that someone has brought in a gun, gets insulted, drunk or shoved and retaliates with bringing out a gun to right the "wrong." And God forbid, the "good guy" wants intervene with his gun to add to the horror and confusion. As you have pointed out Mr Egan, the majority of the civilized world has great freedom without armament. Of course they all have healthcare for their citizens too.
92
And most are subservient to their government. Their Constitutions are written that way. Ours isn’t. Ours is written so the People are in charge, & not the government. We are not ruled we are governed. It is a big difference. We are responsible for what our current regime does. All of us. If we don’t like it, first we try rule of law fixes. Elections, protests, angry letters to the editor. When the regime starts working to remove the Freedoms we have (including the Freedom to not allow ME to do something I don’t approve off, but, not the Freedom to take your Freedoms away from YOU). Freedom of assembly, which your talking about, is one with many responsibilities. You must keep your eyes open, be aware of your surroundings, keep YOUR voice down, not bump into others, not to cut lines, keep your prejudices to yourself, make your kids behave, not get drunk or stoned, not get violent yourself. Also, if someone else does these things you must decide first whether to take the other person to task or not. Then when faced with violence you must decide if you are going to do something or just die. For, even if guns are outlawed here, there will be those with guns. Or bows. Or knives. Or clubs. Or just their fists. Most anything can be turned into a weapon. And is, all over the world. Youwant to be able to be deaf & blind to what goes on around you, & be 120% perfectly safe. Isn’t true anywhere. Ask those in France, England, Belgium. People get killed. It’s life. So watch OUT.
1
Yes, the Second Amendment, as it stands, has to go. It truly has been perverted, especially by the conservatives on the Supreme Court. It’s sad that that wonderful document is being so shamelessly used to sell guns. The process of changing it needs to start now, so future generations can be saved from the carnage.
56
The irony here is that the Second Amendment is at the top of people's list to go. Many in this country are also going after the first amendment, as well as the fourth amendment. Think about where this country would be if these people get their way. How long will it be before a rogue government enslaves our descendants? These protections were put into the constitution by wise men who had lived without these protections. They are in there for a reason.
Great idea. I'd love to have the rest of your list re rush to judgement "solutions" via gutting the constitution of the United States of America. I think I'll go with the founders, thanks so much.
It is so sad that constitution is used to justify the killing of millions of unborn children instead of regulating behavior.
"It’s a no-brainer to pass a law designed to keep people from turning their AKs into machine guns with the so-called bump stocks. But it was also a no-brainer to restrict people on terrorism watch lists from buying guns, as was proposed after the Orlando slaughter of 49 people last year. It failed."
Thank you for this column, Mr. Egan. We unfortunately have no-brainer executive, legislative, and judicial branches feeding this cancer. If we can't change their 'minds' with reason and truth, then let's drown them out with all our collective voices raised. Surely, hidden way down deep, there is a conscience, somewhere?
48
The Las Vegas killer was NOT on any watch list. He was a member of the 1%, who, with our government ALWAYS have a right to all the guns, accessories, ammo they want. Even the right to raise private armies (for their protection), they still will if the 2nd Amendment is repealed. As they are our rulers now. If one wants to go to Las Vegas for target practice, that’s fine with them. We are just targets. So, I see the repeal of the 2nd Amendment as, no one but the rich may own a gun. They may raise private militias & arm them. Against US. This rich man just wanted to hunt, without exertion, the biggest game of all....humans. So, he did. His girlfriend didn’t see anything, because he didn’t become belligerent, angry, violent, as some mass murderers do. Why should he, this was just recreation for him. He planned on traveling around the country on a long hunting trip, picking out ‘game’ at different places. He was calm, collected, not rabid, not ‘going postal’, this was fun for him. If you had seen him in the lobby, he’d just have been a man on a vacation, ready to have fun his way. They are harder to find, harder to stop before they kill. They are legally sane. Hunting is an American ‘sport’.He just picked something to hunt, from a ‘blind’, with overwhelming amounts & kinds of weapons, that most of us don’t approve of. He had the money, so he had the right. That’s how this country works under this regime. Get used to it, or FIGHT IT.
Unfortunately for you, you have no brain if you believe that a person's right can be taken away without due process.
Unbelievable just how many people think that curtailing rights is a solution to anything.
1
Yes, we should pass laws banning all bad behavior. A potential criminal would consult the law book and refrain from committing the crime if it is banned.
And if we catch someone violating the law, we should pardon them because our jails are too crowded.
1
Egan suggests we can cure the cancer of the 2nd amendment by careful legislation within judicial limits. But why do we need the amendment at al? In Madison's day, it was a way to assure states that they would not lose their militias by joining the Union. But the current popular interpretation of the 2nd is absurd. Sure, some justices have written that some restrictions on guns are constitutionally possible. But gun advocates insist on such "rights" as gun sports (e.g., the enjoyment of firing different types of weapons!!, as James Lankford, R Oklahoma, said in a PBS interview), and the need to be ready to use firearms against the government. These ridiculous "street" interpretations are the real impediment to reasonable regulation of gun sales and possession.
For example, there is no possible interpretation of the actual words of the 2nd amendment that would support a right to a semi-automatic weapon, yet they remain legal, under the pretense that any limitation would be unconstitutional. Campus carry laws or laws that pediatricians from suggesting gun safety measures to parents are further hideous examples of how incorrect (and disingenuous) interpretations of the 2nd amendment have perverse legislative consequences.
As long as the second amendment stands, gun extremists will continue to promote such measures under the pretense that they are consistent with the constitution. The first and necessary step to sensible gun policy is repeal of the 2nd amendment.
44
", , , the need to be ready to use firearms against the government."
Rep. Lankford's argument is supremely anti-democratic. This idea assumes that he and some other people know better than the wider electorate and that the power of the gun trumps that of the vote. Who are these so-called patriots to defy the decisions of the ballot box?
1
So you have considered the evidence and are prepared to dictate what may or may not infringe upon what is described as a "right of the people." Surely you will next be dictating to the rest of us what limits there are to the 1st Amendment, or perhaps the 4th?
1
"Street" interpretations? Racist!
Mr. Egan ignores that the Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights -- intended to secure personal liberty against government action. That makes the introductory phrase insignificant.
He also ignores that every tyrant in recorded history forbade private ownership of any military weapons. The founding fathers knew history and certanly knew that.
39
Bravo, Ken, you hit the nail on the head about tyrants, but I am afraid many our of our youth are not taught historical facts in school these days that are inconsistent with political narratives.
Succinctly and accurately put. It is why all arguments suggesting either a repeal or gutting of the 2nd Amendment should be immediately dismissed. It is a natural right enshrined with 9 others as sacred liberties that no government may infringe upon. Our founders did indeed understand history--and knew that the future would bring progress, including improvements in arms. They understood that governments could always find reasons to curtail what they considered to be God-given rights and wanted to be sure that our Constitution reflected those concerns--Up Front.
"Military weapons" at the time of the Founding Fathers were quite different from the weapons available now. To even talk about that is absurd.
2
Countries like France may have made all semi-automatic guns illegal -- and that still hasn’t stopped killers from getting fully automatic machine guns to use in mass shooting attacks. All four of the 2015 mass public shooting in France involved machine guns, for example.
"Gun control" is a strawman. The real problem is mental health and radicalism.
6
Frank—no evidence of mental
Health problems with Paddock—& frankly very little treatment options available for those that have these concerns. Are YOU lobbying for more help for the mentally ill?
Let people vote directly, not through a corrupt politician. I have a feeling that this "majority" who think there should be more regulation doesn't exist in most states in this country. But certainly at the state level we can have some sanity.
1
The violence in our society is not caused by the presence of guns in it. The nation was claimed and founded through the radiation of the indigenous population and periods of American conquest. There would likely be sensible gun control adopted if the voices of "take guns away from everyone" did not have such a cultural megaphone. I didn't read any of the columnists in the NYTs advocating taking away motor vehicles when deranged individuals committed mass murder by driving into crowds. I also rarely see any commentary in this paper advocating comprehensive programs to effectively assist the mentally ill. There are studies producing statistics that this relatively invisible malady is more prevalent than in any time in history. Perhaps a sober examination of our culture and government's interaction with it would be more fruitful than wringing our hands over the rights of law abiding citizens owning guns.
5
But we don't allow anyone to drive an automobile that isn't registered and insured and we require training before someone can drive. We require seat belts and prohibit talking on hand held cell phones and texting. In other words, with respect to autos we do everything that is lacking with respect to firearms. And if anyone violates any of the prohibitions with respect to autos we fine them heavily or take away their license or cause the insurance premiums to rise enough to make driving more expensive. We do none of those things with firearms and we absolutely should. Notice, I didn't suggest taking away everyone's guns, but suggested that anyone owning a deadly weapon be held to a high standard which protects the rest of us from harm.
And beyond the semi-trailer trucks used as weapons in mass murder, here alone we have the Oklahoma City attack (bomb), The Happy Land attack (fire), and of course 9.11 to contemplate. It seems that if the intent to commit mass murder exists many people will find a way.
1
I read a good part of the Heller briefs and also some books on the 2d amendment. I do not think it is even reasonably possible to ascertain what the second amendment means, just as there are many historical documents we can' be sure about. It was simply a matter of votes. The court, thankfully, allowed for reasonable regulation. I do believe people should be able to own a handgun, shot gun, rifle at home, and to take them out for some purposes. I'm fine with concealed carry of small weapons too. But, if this wasn't a wake up call I do not know what it is. Yes, bad guys will have guns anyway and there will be people who will violate whatever law we have. But, whatever the laws are, the "bad guys" will violate them. Let's save the other few hundred thousand lives and worry about that less.
13
Unless and until we federally fund all federal election campaigns, breaking the donor hold on The Best Congress Money Can Buy... we aren't going to get responsible legislation.
To the topic at hand, however, one wonders how a "strict constructionist" would interpret the second amendment. The intent of the founders was clear, muzzle loaders and flintlocks were to be permitted. Advances in technology were unanticipated.
And on the matter of outlawing 'bump stock' modifications? That makes them automatic weapons, which are already illegal. Any suggestion otherwise is at best fatuous and self serving. Having more laws which are unenforced does nothing.
15
Advances in technology were unanticipated? Really? I think Ben Franklin, for one, would beg to differ.
All true. All true. All true. Not to diminish Mr. Egan's point, which needs repetition, but by now it has become like trying to stop a tornado by belching into it.
We vote our leaders into office. That their profoundly obtuse argumentation defies any semblance of common sense or human decency says a lot more about us than it does about Congress or our president.
We'll take ignorance among our leaders, thank you very much, even we we victimize ourselves with insane lethality in the cheap bargain we make with our democracy. We are our own worst enemies.
16
Gun ownership is at a record high while crime and gun deaths are down over an extended period of time. Two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides, and there is little evidence that suicide rates would change much if guns were less available. Consider Japan or some of the Northern European countries where guns are hard to obtain and suicide rates are higher.
There were statistics this week listed in the NYT about how much money congressional leaders have accepted from the gun lobby groups. Surprise, surprise—almost
ALL of them are Republicans. So—I quite agree—vote against the GOP and we can begin to solve this issue.
Correct , Mr. Egan. The Second Amendment is distorted by its loudest, most strident adherents. A well regulated militia, indeed. So when we have the likes of Cliven Bundy and his posse brandishing rifles in a brazen confrontation with federal authorities, we set the stage for like minded people to deputize themselves to commit violence. This isn't about freedom, it's about control. No citizen needs an automatic weapon ,nor a semi automatic weapon. As long as we keep electing cowards, nothing will change.
26
The other day I read a comment by a gun rights advocate stating that more people were killed with fists than with guns. Even if that were true, what does that have to do with the ability of an American to by semi-automatic weapons of war and then turn those guns on his fellow citizens? This is what we're up against---trying to use logic with the illogical, to present evidence to people who will either reject it or give some meaningless statistic to change the subject. Nothing is going to change. The only way to escape gun violence is to leave this country and become an expatriate. I just returned from Scotland. There are virtually no guns in that country. The police don't even carry guns. The rest of the world thinks we're insane, and they're right.
53
It is called efficient allocation of resources, and also cost benefit analysis of imposing a law that takes some freedom away from an individual.
Laws should not be created just to make those individuals feel good who do not understand basic statistics, and are more prone to cognitive biases.
This is a classic example of a bias based on availability heuristics. People tend to think that it is a big problem because 58 people died at once. Compare this to daily alcohol induced death. 241 people die every day, and it is not a one time thing.
How about banning alcohol to prevent 88000 deaths per year?
Actually quite a few shotguns in Scotland. In Israel perhaps 20,000 or more people walk around armed each day, including reserve soldiers doing their annual duty, and many carry automatic weapons. These type of incidents don't occur there, however. It's not the guns, it's individuals dead set on committing mass murder.
The issue here is time and compliance. It would take time for the federal government to secure and purchase from lawful gun owners their property. Some would not want to give up/sell their guns. They then would be law breakers, and subject to the kind of penalty that all lawbreakers receive. Yes, for a good while only violent criminals will have multiple guns, but that means that we should provide better training for our police officers and hire more of them to protect us from criminals. Yes, it will mean higher taxes, but that, Mr. O'Reilly is the real price of freedom. Not the right to shoot someone.
1
To me, it is Congress and the Judiciary who are endangering the Second Amendment by failing to define what is a "well-regulated militia". The hype surrounding any reasonable definition of "well-regulated" as "taking away guns" is ridiculous. It is not the founders or the Constitution that is the problem here. It is the Conservatives' Outrage Machine that is used to drive people to polls, get campaign donations, and induce people to vote against their economic interests.
15
As always, this argument fails to recognize the second, definitive and more forceful phrase that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What is not understood? What is unclear. At a minimum "people" then meant every able-bodied adult male. Now, with universal suffrage, we have a broader interpretation but not one that can lead to believing incredulously that the 2nd Amendment really was meant to ALLOW the government to "regulate" one of rights in the BOR enshrined to protect individual--not state--liberties.
1
Your reference to the Whiskey Rebellion is on point, Mr. Egan, but the Second Amendment fanatics of today would argue that it protects the insurgents' right to bear arms against what they see as a "tyrannical government." This is at the core of their frenzied - and wrong-headed - defense of an fully armed populace, with no restrictions.
10
Thank you, Mr. Egan, for this column; it absolutely reflects my sentiments regarding the second amendment. It seems that the NRA has a toddler grabbing his toys mentality about guns--mine, mine, mine, more, more, more.
The original intent of gun ownership tied to a militia has been so thoroughly subverted (and perverted) that the amendment has lost all application to our current times. There is no way that the founders, had they anticipated the kind of carnage that semi- and automatic weapons of war create, would have allowed such a loosely worded amendment to become part of the documents establishing this nation. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are devices of war--not of civil society. They have no place in the hands of ordinary citizens. Especially without air-tight background checks. Apparently the Las Vegas shooter did have mental issues, according to his girlfriend, but with no criminal background, nothing to trigger awareness that he was amassing an arsenal, and no record of mental health treatment. How many more are out there? They are all getting their bump stocks while supplies last.
We are pathetic as a nation.
12
The NRA actually does many of the thing advocated for, i.e. gun training and safety. The NRA doesn't spend much for political contributions, really only about a 10th of what unions spend.
1
The Second Amendment was most likely put in the Constitution to deal with the very real possibility of slave uprisings, which have terrified every slave-owning society going back to the beginning of time.
That said, if we're going to have it, we should enforce it - the entire thing. Gun-ownership should require registration and membership in a "well regulated militia", which should be organized by the states and should require safety training and other drills.
In the meantime, given the competitive nature of our society, I wonder who is out there in America somewhere, reading about the last horror in Vegas and planning the next one to kill even more of our citizens?
16
The Second amendment was put in place to protect the citizens against a tyrannical government, ie, the British at the time.
1
Hi, Sady -
Actually, it wasn't, but that is a popular argument pushed by the NRA. Think about it. If the militia was there to oppose a tyrannical government, why would it be "necessary to the security of a free state"? The "state" was the one who was meant to regulate the militia, after all. It was not meant to be a private enterprise, nor was it meant to be a disorganized mob of gun owners.
If you want to push your argument, please provide some citations to back you up.
The longer term solution to gun control and many other critical issues will depend upon the ability of enough outraged citizens to organize, "resist" and ultimately make changes using the ballot box, since our current so called leaders have exhibited very little common sense.
5
We also shouldn't be fooled by the NRA's apparent willingness to "allow" laws regulating bump stocks - a no brainer if there ever was one. But we should acknowledge that even semi-automatic, high power weapons which fire as quickly as someone can pull the trigger are capable of creating an instantaneous war zone and should also scrutinized. Coupled with routinely available large capacity magazines they form a deadly combination. The second amendment as interpreted by the NRA and their concubines in the GOP means we all have the "right" to one mass killing because seconds before pulling the trigger most bad guys with guns were good guys with guns. A split second decision toward madness shouldn't jeopardize the lives of hundreds of people in homage to an idea that has long since outlived its usefulness.
5
Here is a suggestion about how to pay for the massive harm and damage that besets our country by the abused 2nd amendment. I say pay for for the harm, not end it as that seems beyond our tiny minds to do. Place an excise tax on weapons and weapon devices based on their rate of fire, caliber of ammunition it can fire and physical size of the gun. Also tax ammunition in the same way. Then use the money from gun lovers to pay for the care or burial of the tens of thousands of victims caused by these handheld killing machines. We do this in some form with alcohol and gambling addicted, it would would work for guns.
Or... amend the 2nd amendment to something that meets the needs of today's world. Then vote on it. There are far more citizens that don't want guns everywhere then want them everywhere.
11
An excise tax might work, if such a tax could be implemented. An alternate plan:
Require gun owners to carry a license that lists all of their guns, and, require
insurance for each gun. Then, at least, the hurt and the dead would have their medical and final expenses covered by the gun owner's insurance.
1
That works for me too. Now all we need to do is elect women and men to high office who actually care about our nation and the welfare of its citizens.
1
Too bad Egan misinterprets the second amendment to his own liking. The key word is "free" in the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State". The second amendment was designed to allow the "people" the ability to overthrow the government since the British had gone around confiscating weapons to thwart protests to their rule. It also wasn't put in there to protect "hunters" and "sportsmen" as many mistakenly claim. Of course, guns and automatic weapons would hardly suffice if the "people" wanted to overthrow a despotic government. This is where the founding fathers were mistaken; they never envisioned weapons such as missiles, tanks and nuclear bombs. A literal interpretation of the second amendment would give us all the right to have such weapons, which clearly society could not tolerate. Although i support the right of the "people" to overthrow their government, the second amendment seems to be an unwise and unhealthy anachronism.
3
There is no "self destruct" clause in the Constitution. The second amendment is purely about state militias.
I do not believe the people have a "right" to overthrow the government. I believe that's called treason. We have the vote for the purpose of choosing leaders. If you used your guns to take over the Capitol, or the White House, with the purpose of overthrowing the government, your actions would not be protected by the Second Amendment. The most likely outcome would be your death, or if not that, lifetime imprisonment. The notion that your weapons are sanctioned for that purpose by the Constitution is absurd.
Very fine article: thank you TE. Presentism gets in the way of our judgments of the past (and of the future). We might keep in mind how things were across the developed world when the Constitution was ratified. For example, TE says nothing about the exclusion of women from the franchise, and indeed the exclusion of men of no property: standard conditions across the world then. Another factor in our grotesque gun culture may be the apparent assumption by the leading Founding Fathers that every white male property owner was a thoughtful philosopher and altruist. Not exactly! Even more grotesque are the antics of our most senior Justices who prattle on about the original inten
2
The 2nd Amendment was originally about slavery, really nothing but slavery. Slave owners were obsessed with a slave rebellion, like the one Spartacus led against Rome. That was their big security issue, their worry about the new Constitution. If the federal government had a monopoly on the use of organized violence, and abolitionists were in control, they might well refuse to come to the aid of slave owners if their slaves rebelled. So, the monopoly on the use of organized violence needed to be dispersed. Slave owners needed a well-organized militia that they could count on. That's where the 2nd Amendment came in.
Maintaining the institution of slavery was the original intent behind the 2nd Amendment. It amazes me that people do not see this when the dynamics of the situation back then are so clear. It also amazes me that the advocates of original intent now never mention slavery when they interpret the Constitution. The founders were all so noble, after all.
The 2nd Amendment always was a cancer upon the body politic. It didn't just evolve into that.
3
You will seldom read an editorial that is more misleading. Bump stocks are a recent innovation. The Obama administration reviewed them and decided that they should be legal and they weren't even worth regulating by the ATF. This was not a Second Amendment related decision. In fact it was totally outside the Second Amendment because it was determined that bump stocks were not firearms.
As for the claim that lawmakers have stopped making aggressive gun laws, that is simply untrue. Last year California passed the country's strictest gun laws. In 2013 New York State passed a similar law. Our two most populous states have not been deterred by Heller. And there are many others. As for the feds, their inaction is not the result of the Second Amendment. It's the result of the many Republicans and a surprisingly large number of Democrats who serve the interest of the gun lobby.
I am not suggesting that our gun laws are adequate. I am merely pointing out that the Second Amendment has not had the effect claimed by Mr. Egan. Virtually any legal expert will tell you that Heller allows for extensive regulation. A good number of states have acted on that. And those that haven't aren't holding back because they think they can't regulate firearms. They are holding back because they don't want to regulate them.
2
Demand campaign finance reform and strict limits on political contributions, and we'll have gun reform very, very quickly.
1
Here here!
I recently wrote a paper on the history of the Second Amendment. I agree with Mr. Egan that the Second's intent was the preservation of the militia, the citizen-soldiers of each state, called up by the governor of that state in emergencies, and, available with state permission to the federal government in national emergencies. Members of the militia were required to provide their own weapons, although caches of muskets and artillery were kept by the states in arsenals.
During the First World War, state militias became regulated by the Department of War, later Defense, training instilled to the standards of the US armed forces, and National Guards are now pretty much viewed as part-time members of the Army, while maintaining links to state government for local emergencies. This is a far different system that that which existed in 1789.
But the statement of intent is not the law within the Second Amendment. The following independent clause is the law - "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Framers found it necessary and important to prevent the proposed federal government from keeping ordinary citizens from owning weapons. The prohibition on restricting weapons ownership was not restricted to members of militias, but all people in the United States. The debate must be whether this restriction on federal power is still needed or desirable.
1
Every other reference to "the People" in the Bill of Rights (First, Fourth and Tenth Amendments) clearly refers to individual citizens.
2
There is no right to bear arms under the Second Amendment since standing armies made militias irrelevant to the national security and defense.("Security and defense" meant to the framers, if not all their contemporaries,
defense against foreign threats and domestic insurrections in the absence of standing armies, not a defense against such standing armies as might arise.) The problem has been the misreading of the amendment foisted on the American people by the SCOTUS's Scalia-written 2008 Heller decision, conservative mythological vehemence, Republican nurture of its NRA financiers and swing voters, and Democratic deference before the same.
Still, the misreading has been so influential that use of the discretion allowed by The problem has been the misreading of the amendment foisted on the American people by Heller might be wise.
What makes any sort of gun control so politically difficult is the strong connection so many people have between gun ownership and "freedom" -- a linkage that is carefully nurtured by the industry and NRA. To many, any effort to restrict guns is tantamount to taking away their freedom.
4
2nd amendment advocates of open carry/concealed carry will soon see those rights eroded away. Not because of a do nothing congress but because of the free market they so love. At stadiums, amusement parks metal detectors and bag checks are common. Merchants will realize the inherent liability for their customers and checks will expand soon to malls, then eventually to more commercial zones. Gun carry zealots will be left with the choice of leaving their firearm in the car or not going, which basically defeats the purpose of carrying in the first place and all because they refuse to even consider reasonable gun control.
2
The constitution was set up to be revised and yet we never revise it. It is not a holy text and it is not be to enshrined and revered. It is a functional contract that needs to keep up with the inevitable changes of our world. This contract was born out of exercise of our reason and we should revise it when its antiquated words become unreasonable. The second amendment, the electoral college, disproportional senate and "loophole" that allows gerrymandering all need revision, because they are no longer reasonable.
12
I propose a Constitutional Convention, to be held in Philadelphia in the summer of 2019. No joke. What you write is true, Typical. We need to address necessary updating in a comprehensive and careful way.
However, on the issue of whether the Constitution is holy text, the right in America is busy trying to make it that. There are even fundamentalist Christians who want to view it as directly inspired by the hand of god. There is an on-going effort to treat the document as biblical in nature and one which cannot be changed to any important degree. This effort centers on the idea that we are a republic first, not intended to be a true democracy. If that were the case, then efforts to limit the practice of democracy, which many Republicans support, would be considered proper, unquestioned.
3
Very fine article: thank you TE. Presentism gets in the way of our judgments of the past (and of the future). We might keep in mind how things were across the developed world when the Constitution was ratified. For example, TE says nothing about the exclusion of women from the franchise, and indeed the exclusion of men of no property: standard conditions across the world then. Another factor in the genesis of our grotesque gun culture may be the apparent assumption by the leading Founding Fathers that every white male property owner was a thoughtful philosopher and altruist. Not exactly. Even more grotesque are the antics of our most senior Justices who prattle on about the original intent of a document that enshrined racism, misogyny, and class distinction. The Constitution must change to deal with modern realities.
117
The realities of the time made the Constitution what it became, even to the means of changing it being built right into it to meet the needs of an evolving society. Modern realities will themselves preclude its being changed any further. As Eisenhower said, "I don't like it, but there it is."
1
Yes but change only by constitutional amendments, not executive orders.
2
As a side note to the observation that we have not kept pace with the technology of weaponry:. there are two other major developments that obviated the need for the "well-regulated militia". The first was the introduction of the professional, full-time police force, starting in Boston in the 1830's. The second was the institionalization of the National Guard, starting in 1903 and culminating in 1933, as a truly well-regulated joint Federal and State militia. Either of these developments, but certainly both, should have resulted in cleaning up, or eliminating entirely, the 2nd Amendment.
11
As most of us learned in elementary school you have to pass an Amendment to the Constitution to change it.
So if you want to “clean up” or “eliminate” the 2nd get to work!
1
Sorry, but we still have a militia enshrined in current law. See 10 USC 246. It has millions of members and is much larger than the National Guard
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
1
People with modern guns can and do kill a lot of people. This is an issue that deals with gun owners. The rest of the population is hostage. The NRA and its minions in the legislative branch of our government has created what amounts to an armament gap between citizens and criminals and uses it to justify further gun sales for protection.
No single legislation is going to fix this chaos. But it needs to start with restriction to firepower.
Government is supposed to regulate things that individuals are unable to do on their own.
The dogs of hell have been unleashed; no one is safe until they have been reigned in. That will take a long time, but we need to be moving in the correct direction.
9
I think the drawback in Timothy Egan’s opinion piece is to view the Second Amendment in too narrow a light.
The logical extension of the Second Amendment interpretations can’t be viewed independently of the trends in judicial review. The legislative history of permitting more domestic weapon manufactures and sales can’t be seen independently of urban crime and societal phobias. The solidifying of views on tougher versus more liberal approaches to punishment and sentencing can’t be seen independently of the increasing takeup of more entrenched partisan positions. And discussion of the Second Amendment can’t be seen independently of the sense that the populace is polarising for and against symbols, such as the Second Amendment, that are being viewed, as if through a magnifying glass, as holy instruments of national identity.
1
Timothy, the cancer afflicting the Constitution are the judges who insist on holding seances in an effort to channel how men dead over two hundred years would frame an issue in the modern world.
These same judges who would make us slaves to ancients equally seek to make us slaves to money and corporations - like the corporations who constitute the gun lobby - just as other men were made slaves to wealth and property in that earlier era.
A country must always belong to the living. The examples of the dead can inspire us - but they cannot competently light our way as we travel a road that they could not contemplate. And surely, our era of mass slaughter with rapid-firing automatic weapons and malevolent, ideologically-impelled suicide bombers, is one that they did not contemplate.
The Framers made the Constitution fiendishly difficult to amend in any controversial area. They left us in the choke-hold of the past - a choke-hold that only a forward-looking Justice can feasibly relieve in a timely manner.
The past is dead, the present demands our courageous, undivided attention, the future hangs in the balance.
88
The authors of the Constitution realized the Constitution would need to be adapted to changing circumstance. This is why they incorporated the amendment process. The Constitution also permits us to call a new constitutional co9nvention, which could pass amendments by majority vote.
The Constitution has been amended three times in my lifetime,
2
So basically you are saying that it is too hard to take away people’s right the legal way so you are then allowed to do whatever you want to achieve your goals.
And you wonder why people don’t trust Democrats.
2
Excellent comment. I have never really understood the obsession with determining the "original intent" of the framers of the constitution. Are we to believe that these people from another era are somehow better at identifying and addressing problems in our current society?
While I think the structure of the government that was created is ingenious, albeit flawed, there are many aspects of the constitution that could use some revision to fit the modern world.
With most of the amendments, it is easy to identify their continuing importance to maintaining a fair and just society, but others are simply dusty historical vestiges (is anyone really concerned about the current implications of the third amendment?). As with the electoral college, there are many aspects of the constitution that simply do not make sense anymore.
Clinging to "original intent" as a means of enforcing a no longer logical premise is a destructive policy that has no logical basis. Let us stop arguing about what the second amendment meant to the framers of the constitution, and start talking about what it means to us all today.
3
We can argue the 2nd Amendment until there's no citizen left standing, but until we come to our senses as a nation and demand limits on unrestrained political spending, and until the SCOTUS finds a solution for perverted gerrymandering, and until the Republican Party is thrown out of office and into the dustbin of history, people will continue being shot and killed randomly and often for no damn reason other than pure greed and the always present whiff of male dominance.
63
As I have stated before, I own guns. So, I am not an anti-gun "nut". I was required to take hours of driver training, pass a written and a road test, and show proof of insurance to be allowed to drive a car. Which we all accept as reasonable precautions for my safety and that of others. With guns, I can order a gun online, pickup in store same day, fill out an antiquated, ridiculous (are you a fugitive from justice? Yes or no), and simple form (about 5 minutes), and grab my new gun and go. No training, no test, no real work. 60 or 100 round magazines? Delivered to my door. 1000s of rounds of ammo? Home delivery or store pickup, just depends on your mood and pricing. Bump stocks? Well, that would require some work because there's been a run on them. Better to wait a little and pick one up on the side. It's too damn easy to start another massacre. Test me. Regulate me. Track and limit my purchases. Make me show my police department that I know how to properly handle and use a gun. If I cannot do that, I should not have one. No magazine needs to hold more than 10 bullets. No one needs double digit numbers of guns. No one needs thousands of rounds of ammo. Bump stocks never should have never made it to market. We passed by insanity years ago. Will regulation stop all the violence? No. That boat has sailed. But, driving tests don't stop all accidents and, yet, we are still comfortable with them being required. Because we all understand that it's better than having nothing at all.
167
extra guns are needed to arm the sheeple when they suddenly realize "Oh S*&t, they were right!
Jayce, I am like you, in that I own guns, a few pistols and shotguns, have been a life long hunter, and I am a strong believer in testing and regulation. Texas, where I live, has a decent program that requires all people buying a hunting license to take a gun safety course and be certified. It is a fundamental step in the right direction. It is odd that Texas thinks anyone who wants to hunt should be qualified to handle a gun, but does not think anyone who wants to buy a gun should be so qualified. But this is Texas.
https://tpwd.texas.gov/education/hunter-education/faq#who
If the state of Texas, arguably the most gun favoring state, mandates such a course, why not extend it to purchasing guns, and extend it nationwide?
3
Liability insurance and licensing will be a sea change. It pushes a chunk of the enormous costs of 30k gun deaths, and hundreds of thousands of gun maimings back on the owners where it belongs. You want 30 AR15 knock offs, well, your liability insurance bill is going to reflect that. Insurance companies's clout in this paradigm will dwarf the NRAs. The actuaries don't like to lose money and they will treat this as a public health issue and push for practical ways to manage the risk. It is not in their interest to do away with guns in this scenario, just to maximize the premium cost to owners and minimize their losses. The math is pretty simple.
2
The cancer that the constitution has contracted in its second amendment also affects the first, The Supreme Court are guilty of malpractice in equating money with speech. The logic of that is that the less money you have, the less your freedom of speech. And that will be hard to reverse, because if you don't have the money you can hardly sue on the grounds that your free speech rights were violated. In my book, freedom of speech means nothing if your intended audience can't hear you.
At least with the Second Amendment, the justices conceded that the right if the individual to bear armies is subject to limitations, which they left open for hte
140
Great, dead on comment.
A poor person has "free speech" and all they can do is get a milk box and stand on a corner and yell. David Koch, buys off an entire government, and gets his perverse views subjected onto the entire nation.
2
Actually, they acknowledged that there COULD exist limitations, not that there MUST exist limitations. The reason the difference is import is that they are relying on Congress (much of which is fully in the pocket of the NRA, an organization which has definitively demonstrated it is not interested in limits on the 2nd Amendment) to define those limitations. Unless Congress gets involved (which it has previously demonstrated that it won't), no such limitations will occur. This emphasizing your first point, which is that the ability of outside influences to flood Congressional campaigns with money as "free speech" will render the resulting Congress to do less and less over time, unless current regulations or law conflict with the interests of those outside entities.
As mere citizens, we won't ever be represented unless we can eliminate the effectiveness of money in the political system.
1
Absurd .... go look at this thing call Facebook, everyone has plenty of opportunity to speak in so many forums we have never had anything approach the kind of free speak we have today.
I don’t think the cancer is the amendment itself. The cancer is a modern day Republican Party which has sold itself and its country out to its corporate masters and its donors. One of whom is the National Rifle Association.
It really doesn’t matter what the issue is. Guns? They have to defer to the NRA. Environmental policy? They have to defer to industry. Taxes? They have to defer to the Kochs and the Mercers. Health care? See “Taxes”, because the Republicans’ problem with any government involvement in health care (be it the ACA, Medicare, Medicaid and even the CHIPs program) is that it must be paid for with taxes.
The Constitution has flaws, not the least of which is the Senate and the electoral college, but those issues didn’t always prevent the country from addressing problems via public policy, even the problem of dangerous weapons. We’ve passed several pieces of legislation at the state and federal level to protect us from such weapons. It wasn’t until the Republican Party became what it is today that we became so paralyzed to further protect ourselves.
And that is a problem of people, not the document itself.
196
You got one thing right: your problem is The People. Campaign contributions from the NRA are minuscule and insignificant.
What you call deference to special interests is actually nothing more than choosing to leave in place freedom rather than passing one more statute to limit liberty.
If you want to understand how deep the paranoia of the Right goes, you only have to recall the recent Operation Jade Helm, a military preparedness exercise that inspired some wild conspiracy theories.
The general idea was the Federal government under Obama was planning to capture and lock up armed Texas patriots who might resist an ISIS takeover he was clearly planning. According to the conspiracists, there were tunnels under vacant Walmarts and secret FEMA prisons and a lot of other nonsense.
Fortunately for Texas, brave Governer Greg Abbott ordered careful monitoring of Operation Jade Helm so the plot was foiled. Whew!
In such a bizarre climate, we hardly need the Russians to sow chaos and sell more high powered weapons to mentally unstable people.
256
This fine essay stops short of the problem when Egan says:
' As he (djt) told the N.R.A. after the election, “You came through big for me, and I am going to come through for you.” '
The problem is Big Money in our politics, which saw the N.R.A. spend $50+ million$ this election cycle, which primarily comes from gun manufacturers, not run-of-the-mill members:
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/11/the-nra-placed-big-bets-on-the-...
Getting Big Money out of the political game would solve the issue, since our representatives would again care about what voters think, instead of hanging with the donors all the time.
Americans have no constitutionally guaranteed right to own a howitzer or bazooka (without lots of licenses), and if we can't buy more than 20 Sudafed tablets over-the-counter per 10 days, why can an American like the Las Vegas shooter legally purchase some 33 rifles/long guns between Oct. 2016 and Sept. 2017 without an alarm bell somewhere going off ?
Big Money.
Thanks Roberts Court, for Citizens United and the McCutcheon decisions.
340
Metastatic cancer is one metaphor but I think "infection" might be a better fit. As we have learned in the past few years our "bodies" do not end with the skin, and your gut is a tube that runs through that body, technically "outside." The skin and that tube are home to an enormous collection of bacteria and other microorganisms usually living in homeostatic equilibrium with the other microorganisms in the "ecological system" that includes "the inside" beyond the border of the skin and gut lining. When healthy, both sides of the border benefit, indeed, we cannot be healthy without cooperation between the inside and the community of microorganisms we term our "microbiome." The immune system not only regulates and "secures" the border but monitors the inside to keep it generally sterile. If the border is breached by a large influx of bacteria the immune system will attempt to check it and reestablish the equilibrium. When it fails, because the breach is huge or the system is weak or the invaders are a virulent strain that has already upset the outside ecology, become ascendent and created an imbalance in the "outside" system...you get an infection, a war between invaders and the immune system that can so corrupt the tuned and balanced multitude of "systems" that we call "health" that the larger system, our body, chronically malfunctions and/or dies. This is modern money and the body politic.
1
What would unions do?
Unlimited funding to buy politicians and unlimited killing power for personal weapons - Justice John Roberts - this is your legacy and it's how you'll be remembered for the rest of time. But it's not too late to get on the right side of history. ACT NOW.
1
Mr. Egan, once again you hit the nail squarely on the head. The problem is, most of those who will read your column already understand this. It's the lunatic, enraged minority who are thoroughly used to maintain control of Congress who do not. And it's the same cynical abuse of the Constitution that gave us Citizens United, etc. David Brooks, in today's column, says that the insistence on the right not to listen to reason on guns is a reflection of a deep-seated sense of alienation on the part of those left behind in our post-industrial society, and that the way to reach them is by listening to their grievances. I rather think there is no sense of reason there, only paranoid anger of those ill equipped to function in an increasingly technologically complex society. The answer is at the ballot box - elect representatives who will 1) respect democratic principles of governance and the expressed will of the majority, and (related) 2) reenact strict controls on money in our political system. Otherwise, we're headed for the OK Corral.
184
We have more than one type of growing cancer in the Constitution, and the second one has fed the one Egan describes. The structure of our Senate and Electoral College, which gives disportionate power to rural interests in a world where revenue and population is increasingly urban, is going to continue to create and feed divisive issues like this. It will be a true test of the Constitution's resilience over the next century to adjust and cure itself of these ills. I hope we can do it.
364
Right. In case repealing the Second Amendment isn't enough of a challenge, you can try to overturn the entire US constitution. Perhaps there's another country in which you'd prefer to live.
That was the price to form our REPUBLIC, and it protects against the very thing you expose ... that a simply majority of the mob over runs the a sizable minority. The consequence of getting rid of the EC would cut both ways my friend. What feeds divisiveness is the identity politics of the left.
"One of the great disconnects of our history is how a nation birthed on the premise that all men are created equal could enshrine an entire race of people as three-fifths of a human being."
It would be wise to look at things in context, Mr. Egan Without the Three-Fifths Compromise (and other compromises), there would not have been a United States of America. Instead, there would have been tow separate nations, and the southern one would probably have placed slavery into their new constitution.
As for the Second Amendment, the young nation did not want a repeat of the excesses of a central government. And the "Tea Party" reference to the Whiskey Rebellion is a little overboard, don't you think? The Tea Party group of today talks about taxes in general, while the Whiskey Rebellion was about a specific tax. The Tea Party has not mounted an armed insurrection either, have they, Mr. Egan?
With that said, there is no logical reason to allow any weapon in the hands of civilians to be capable of fully automatic fire. Whatever mechanisms were used in Las Vegas to make that possible should be banned, period.
15
@hm1342: According to your logic, I- along with my great-great grandparents should feel proud they were merely three-fifths human in order to create America. No thanks. By-the-way; The South has continued their unwritten *Constitution* of black slavery.
4
Without the three-fifths compromise, there might not have been a civil war and hopefully the slave holding South would have changed on its own as the world became more enlightened. As it is, we fool ourselves when we think this country is an open and just one.
As for the Second Amendment, the militia was to protect the fledgling country against outside forces, not against its own government. Originally, the "standing army" that we have today was not allowed and citizens were to be prepared to be called up to defend this country if needed.
4
As a hunter, sport shooter and all around tinkerer I can tell you it's not all that difficult to make some semi-autos into full autos, BUT: It's highly illegal and carries serious penalties, which I agree with. I think bump stocks are useless in any practical application. I think the same thing of facebook and twitter.
I would feel guilty making that conversion, some others would not, they won't be deterred by a new law, though including bump stocks in it would be fine by most of us in the community.
I'm of 2 minds on the bit about "terror" watch lists, like the no fly lists, which are notoriously flawed. Perhaps I could be more enthusiastic if our gov't had a better track record.
2
Taking a strict reading of the the second amendment: require every gun owner to join a well regulated militia - today we call it the National Guard - "well regulated" in an original reading would mean practiced - which would be in keeping with the National Guards' one weekend a month - 2 weeks a year requirement- it would also provide a bit of oversight on those gun owners who might seek to harm.... and of course there would be no compensation needed - National Guard service would be the cost of gun ownership. With rights come responsibilities.
486
I'm not against your idea. I think that mandatory service to the country has multiple benefits.
5
I couldn't agree more. At least, any "well regulated militia" requires its members to let militia officers know what weapons they possess and their condition, and to show the weapons for inspection from time to time.
5
Reb El, I agree with you that we've completely lost sight of the limiting intoductory clause of the 2nd Amendment. Between the NRA, the gun lobby, and the Heller decision events like Sandy Hook, Orlando, and Las Vegas were bound to happen.
While I like your idea, a better and more fundamental approach would be to "repeal and replace" the 2nd Amendment with language that puts reasonable limits on gun ownership in light of their lethality, rate of fire, etc. I own guns. I shoot and hunt. But I have no need for a semi-automatic high powered assualt rifle with a 30 round clip and neither does anyone else.
Getting these weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of the public is not easy but not impossible. Australia did it and we can too if Trump, Congress, and ordinary citizens have enough courage.
6