Let’s start here: the Second Amendment to the Constitution is bullshit–twice over. First of all, the modern interpretation of it really only began in the 70s. For the prior 200 years no one thought it was guaranteeing individuals the right to own firearms. It was clearly about regulated state militias forming the defense of the fledgling nation.
Which brings us to the second reason why the Second Amendment is bullshit: when you consider its original purpose it’s hard to conclude that it’s anything but an outdated relic from the 18th century that has no relevance to modern times whatsoever.
The reason we have a Second Amendment is because at the time having a standing federal army was thought to be undesirable. You can understand why, maybe, when you consider that the founders just saw what a central government can do to its citizens with its army. So “well regulated” state militias were to form the national defense instead, thus ensuring that military power was evenly distributed among the states and not concentrated in the federal government. The Second Amendment simply ensures that states will always have the ability to have and arm those militias. And the reason the Amendment mentions “the people” at all is that these militias were going to be manned by people with day jobs: citizen soldiers.
That was the sole intent of the Amendment: to ensure that states are able to muster their civilian militias, for the defense of the nation, in lieu of a standing federal army, which at the time was seen as dangerous.
But you may have noticed that we now have a standing federal army. And we have had for a long time. So it would appear that the original purpose of the Amendment is completely moot.
Thus the modern interpretation is a fraud and the original purpose is obsolete. Bullshit twice over.
Look, I’m not saying that nobody should have any guns. I’m just saying the Constitution does not guarantee it as a right (outside of well regulated state militias). Congress and state legislatures are free to make laws regulating individual ownership without fear of running afoul of the Constitution, or at least of the Second Amendment.
Here’s an interesting question, though. Where did the modern interpretation come from? When did it become popular among legal scholars to view the Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to own firearms? And why?
This is where the NRA comes into it. It was founded in 1871 by Union soldiers who were appalled at the poor marksmanship of their fellow soldiers. So they formed the National Rifle Association to solve that problem. Its main purposes, emblazoned across the front of their headquarters even into the 1950s, were “firearms safety education, marksmanship training, shooting for recreation.” Nothing about gun rights or the Second Amendment.
Then in 1977 the NRA was taken over by a group of radicals who turned it into the organization we know today. One of the first orders of business was to fund a lot of legal scholarship supporting their new interpretation of the Second Amendment. And that view was only validated by the Supreme Court in 2008!
But why the change back in ’77? What was the motivation? Some say it’s the gun restriction laws that were passed in the wake of the assassinations of the Kennedy’s and Martin Luther King. But gun restrictions had been passed before and it didn’t cause the NRA to become radicalized. What was different in the 70s is that the Civil Rights Act had recently become the law of the land. Schools were integrated. Everything was integrated.
It’s my contention that this was seen by many white Americans as a betrayal by the federal government. It is when some whites turned to guns not only to defend themselves against black people (who were now infiltrating white spaces everywhere), but against the government itself, lest it seek to betray them further by taking other measures to make black people the equal of white people in society.
This was the fuel, the motivation, that turned the NRA into the group it is today, why it is now commonplace for people to think the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own firearms, and why we have the modern gun rights movement in this country.
Think it’s far fetched? Then riddle me this. Why did gun sales skyrocket when Barack Obama became president? Because gun owners thought he would take their guns? Why would they think that? Was he noticeably more pro gun control than other Democrats? No. But you know what he definitely was? Noticeably black.
I hate to make everything about race. Mainly because so many people object, saying “stop making everything about race!” But it’s hard not to when just about everything is in fact about race.
Will it ever change? Yes, it will. What will it take? All it will take is for more people to die.
No, I don’t mean shooting victims. I mean old white people. It’s clear to me that we’re going to continue to do nothing because there are too many of us who actively resist doing anything. But as more and more older white people die, the electorate will be rid of their pernicious influence on guns and other issues, leaving younger voters with more sensible ideas to address the problem. In other words, when David Hogg is speaker of the house.
If you think it’s pretty heartless to be looking forward to a time when people are dead, I take your point. However, I offer this counterpoint: I think it’s even more heartless to refuse to do anything when kids in school are gunned down by one guy with an AR. Again and again.