So you think the only way they’re gonna take that gun away from you is when they pry it from your cold, dead hands? Maybe you’re right. But have you considered that your right to own a gun might be the very freedom that spells the end of the United States as a global military power?
Amendment II
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.
We’ve all heard the classic arguments against the 2nd Amendment. Here are just a couple quick hits before we delve into my dystopian argument. In the late 1700s, the most cutting edge weapons were single shot muskets. Surely the writers of this Amendment never imagined the McMillan Tac-50, a rifle that can accurately deliver a .50 caliber round to a target over a mile away. Nor did they fathom the AK-47 that can fire 600 rounds per minute. Were these the arms they wanted U.S. citizens to readily access? What about the unfathomably powerful weapons another 200 years in the future?
The 2nd Amendment begins, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . .” We no longer need militias. We have the world’s mightiest military. And, last I’ve heard, they’ll supply you with all the arms and ammunition you need, compliments of the American taxpayer.
Perhaps I’m being a bit pedantic. Admittedly writing styles have morphed greatly since the 18th century. Personally, I can’t even understand the prose of The Great Gatsby, and it was written in the early 20th century. But, undoubtedly the first half of the 2nd Amendment remains instrumental to its intention. It states that we have the right to keep weapons so that we can protect the country if/when we need to take up those arms as a militia. Again, though, we have replaced an ad hoc militia with a full-time military. No need for a militia, thus no need for civilian arms. Or so the argument goes. Today, people often just drop the first half of the Amendment, completely bastardizing it to simply “The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Talk about taking a quote out of context!
And what about the “being necessary to the security of a free State” part? This implies freedom from our enemies abroad—from war. We have been in the War in Afghanistan since 2001, yet most of us never give it a thought. If it’s not in our backyard, it may as well be halfway around the world. Wars today are fought with technology: drones, targeted attacks, stealth helicopters dropping an elite force on the enemy’s doorstep, unaware. We do not need guns in our homes to protect us from our foreign enemies. The might of our military will ensure no battle is brought onto our shores ever again. At least no fight any gun can protect us from.
Imagine Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a child’s sparkler waving above his little head as he stares up at the fireworks with awe and wonder. Any attack on US soil would be more like the finale to that July 4th fireworks display. Your guns will not help ensure the security of this free state if WMDs cross into our borders.
Okay, now let’s get to that extreme argument. I want to explore a possible catch-22 that surfaces with just a slight flexing of an interpretation here and there. The mighty U.S. military—the very military that protects the American people and the United States Constitution—may itself be unconstitutional.
Since Arms is not specific, we will assume the broadest interpretation: any weapon, inclusive of all modes necessary to deliver the weapon to its destination of employment. Following from this interpretation, no weapon produced by this country could be kept strictly for use by the US military since “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Every piece of secret weaponry would need to be made available for sale to U.S. citizens. Could you imagine your neighbor with a Predator UAV, deploying a strategic missile strike at your dog from 25,000 feet because Fido pooped on his lawn? This mandate would eliminate all secret military arms, as well as potentially allowing enemies of the U.S. to reverse engineer our creations.
At this point you’re saying this is utterly ridiculous. Maybe it is. But we can’t have it both ways. We can’t guarantee citizens the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, while simultaneously not supplying a route to obtain those arms. The US military continues to make weapons they keep secret from American citizens—and more importantly, our enemies—consequently denying their Constitutional right to keep and bear those specific arms. Thus, the U.S. military could be construed as unconstitutional.
You may also be arguing that just because something is made, doesn’t mean it’s available for public purchase. Not even Jeff Bezos can purchase the International Space Station. Well, the ISS isn’t protected by the Constitution. I’m not saying that any piece of technology the military doesn’t want to sell needs to have a reasonable price tag. Listing something on EBay for $42 trillion trillion trillion would fulfill the Constitutional mandate of making it “available” for purchase, while safely circumventing the ability for it to be purchased even if Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg, and Bezos all plopped down their Amex Black Cards. Regardless, though, secrecy would no longer exist.
Let’s take this to the complete opposite extreme. If we agree that the military is flouting the 2nd Amendment by maintaining secret arms unavailable to the American public, what would stop the government from gradually tightening their assault on your 2nd Amendment rights? Right now you can’t buy that stealth helicopter nobody was supposed to know about until it crashed in Osama Bin Laden’s dusty front yard. Soon thereafter, your neighbor will have his puppy-eliminating UAV repossessed. They simultaneously roll back the sale of armored vehicles to SWAT units. We don’t see a reason for any civilian to have that McMillan Tac-50 sniper rifle or the AK-47. In fact, no more pistols greater than 22-caliber. Sorry, we meant no more guns at all. Or bows and arrows—we’ve all seen what damage Cupid can do with those. Come on son, hand over that slingshot. Eventually we’ll be lucky if they let us cut our steak with a plastic knife.
The above paragraph may seem like an argument in favor of the 2nd Amendment. But in truth, it demonstrates the slippery slope that exists when exemptions are made. A minor lax in enforcement snowballs into an avalanche, consuming an entire Amendment. Its downfall leaks into the next until we’re left with a Constitution whose only value is that of a relic of a free nation that was. What are you willing to give up for your precious guns?
So, you still think the 2nd Amendment is worth all the fuss? 2020 has been a pissing contest to see what horrible thing can supersede the last. With the constant political and social unrest in the (not so)-United States, we need to be as concerned with protecting this country from ourselves as we do from any entity outside our borders. It goes without saying, though, that we will always take comfort in the might of our military. But, if you—like my wife and I— feel even the slightest sense of added safety and protection from having a couple loaded pistols at the ready, you should have that right. So, I guess, yeah, come to think of it . . . You’re Probably Right.
[009] September 09, 2020