Thoughts from the Middle

The Second Amendment and Gun Control

By Robert James Fischer

The Second Amendment

            In my opinion, it is truly unfortunate that many Americans, if not most, have never read the Constitution or the Amendments.  Still, those same citizens often refer to their rights under the Constitution and its Amendments.  In order to understand the drama behind the battle for the “right to bear arms,” as debated by the American Rifle Association and the liberal left, it is important to know what the Second Amendment actually says  “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

            Note our Founding Fathers’ first words, “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.”  These opening words are the heart of the 2^nd Amendment, not the  often quoted, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” 

It is important to keep in mind the perspective of our Founding Fathers.  The time when this amendment was passed was December 15, 1791.  It was first proposed on September 25, 1789 as one of 12 proposed amendments.  It was only five years since the British had surrendered to the newly declared American States.  There were plenty of British sympathizers in the colonies, and the British, who were preoccupied with events in Europe, were still interested in reclaiming their colonies and their reputation.  In addition, Spain and France were still active players on the American Continent.   Conflicts and battles with the Spanish would foreshadow the coming war with the British. Then, in 1812, the British acted upon their interest in the War of 1812

It is equally important to understand that at the time, the American Armed Forces were generally not professional soldiers.  The Continental Army that General George Washington commanded was composed of citizen soldiers.  Many brought their own horses and arms.  The new Continental Government had neither the money nor contacts to provide these two necessary items of war.

Given the British issue, as well as the non-standing army, it is no surprise that our leaders choose to make it clear that citizens would have the right to bear arms under the guidance of a well regulated Militia.  The right to keep firearms was the nation’s way of making sure that the lack of a strong standing army would not allow European nations to think that they could attack the new nation.

The National Rifle Association, the Twenty-first Century and the Second Amendment

            As a young boy, I was well aware of the National Rifle Association (NRA).  At that time its primary focus was on firearms safety, marksmanship, and hunting.  The NRA from the 1930s through the early 1970s supported the National Firearms Act, and later the Gun Control Act of 1968.  The federal government of that time was not interested removing the “right to bear arms.”  The legislation called for restrictions on certain categories and classes of weapons and associated tools.  The focus on the right to bear arms began in the mid-1970s.   In recent years, the organization has become the leading advocate for the protection of the right to bear arms.  Just what does this mean?  As weapons have changed from the flint lock to the semi-automatic rifle that I used to hunt squirrels and rabbits, the Association has championed the right of the gun owner to possess the firearms of his or her choice.

Today semi-automatic rifles and pistols are legal to own.  However, our government (remember—We the People are the government) has decided to control the sales of fully automatic weapons and other types of military hardware.  Efforts to further regulate gun ownership and associated tools are strongly opposed by the NRA and its allies.  Lobbyists for the gun manufacturers, as well as the NRA, have been able to stop much of the legislation aimed at further controlling gun ownership.

Loopholes in gun sales requirements have allowed guns to be purchased by persons who might not pass scrutiny of a thorough background check.  Gun registration has been a suggestion that has been condemned by the NRA as being a “slippery slope” to government confiscation of firearms—even though there is no data to support this theory.

Gun Ownership, Violence, and the American Way

            Of all the countries on this globe, no nation has more gun violence than the United States.  Our citizens own more guns than any other country’s citizens.  Why?  The answer that is commonly given is that it is our heritage.  The gun “won the West”!  While it is certainly true that American frontiersmen would not be without a gun and most farmers had at least one gun for protection against varmints, the gun was viewed as tool rather than something purchased merely because a person wanted to have one.  Guns were not prolific until the 1980s when gun manufactures discovered a sporting and enthusiastic audience among the American public.

As a police officer in the early 1970s, I carried a Smith and Wesson .357.  The persons that I encountered in my work in Oklahoma, where open carry was allowed, might have a rifle or shotgun in a truck mounted rack or a .38 in a holster on their hip.  However, today’s officers often face persons carrying semi and fully automatic rifles and pistols with munition clips of 30 rounds.  The availability of weapons is a problem created by marketing on the part the gun manufacturers.  This includes the NRA and groups which focus on a “fear factor,” that somehow our government will want to confiscate our weapons.

While the NRA has genuinely stated, “Guns don’t kill, people do!”, the truth is that people find it much easier to kill using a gun than using their fists or a club. Furthermore, they may not kill a person if they didn’t have a gun at the ready—and instead had a chance to cool their temper.

Is There a Solution to the Conflict Between the Right to Bear Arms and Firearms Regulation?

            Of course, there is a compromise!  There is always a MIDDLE OF THE ROAD option!  It just takes the will of our elected representatives to make it happen.  First, the Second Amendment should be reaffirmed.  The focus should be on the first part of this amendment, “well regulated,” along with the right to bear arms. “Regulation” is the key word since the militia has been replaced by a federal standing army and the National Guard units.  The issue then becomes, what regulations are reasonable?  As a person who has hunted and worked as a police officer, I still have over 15 firearms, ranging from revolvers to rifles ( 2 semi-automatic) and shotguns.  I believe these tools are useful for hunting and in the case of the pistols, protection of property.  I personally see no reason to own fully automatic weapons or other weapons beyond those needed for hunting and basic protection of self and property.  Even the Old West had examples of peace officers such as Bat Matterson and Wyatt Earp, who imposed a no firearms ordinance for those who entered the city limits.

One final note is that some of my friends argue that they enjoy shooting all type of weapons and therefore should have the right to own them.  I would suggest that for those who want to enjoy the thrill of a fully automatic weapon or a large caliber rifle, their needs can be met at a local firearms range.  Weapons can be stored at these sites and checked out for those who wish to enjoy the thrills that they bring.  In this manner, the more dangerous, and unnecessary, tools will be controlled and thus not available for use in a heated moment, or for a well-planned shooting such as the recent event in Las Veg