On the Second Amendment

As a Canadian, by birth and culture, I do not understand the American fascination with guns. Nor, quite frankly, do I understand the power of the Second Amendment. Two stories broke this week that makes me question it even more.

First, for those that don't have a copy of the Constitution lying around, the Second Amendment is:

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. (Wikipedia)

If it is not the shortest of the amendments, I certainly cannot think of one shorter. Further, it is pretty direct and, depending on your read, unambiguous. I will come back to that in a moment.

Two stories. First, the very public shooting overnight in Missouri:

6 Die in Shooting at Mo. Council Meeting February 8, 2008 - 6:55am By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD Associated Press Writer KIRKWOOD, Mo. (AP) - Ten days after losing a federal lawsuit against this St. Louis suburb he insisted harassed him, a gunman stormed a council meeting and opened fire, killing two police officers and three city officials. (WTOP)

Second, a not so public story about a shooting of a local teen following a fight at a weekend party. The teen has since died of his wounds. I know about it, because the teen was the son of a friend of mine.

There are those who will argue that the six people killed in Missouri were killed because state law prevented them from defending themselves. Others will argue the truism that people kill, not guns (they are just the tools). Still others will argue that 40 odd people will die today because of drunk driving and we do not ban/restrict alcohol. And I know that my friend will argue until Hell freezes over, the support of the Second Amendment, despite the loss.

On the other side of the coin, there are a number of people, some victims, some relatives of victims that wonder why something is not done to prevent this. Why the United States continues to allow such easy access to firearms. This is a question that is asked after every mass killing, whether it is in the council chambers, on University campuses or in private homes. It is asked when the killer is angry at the system, mentally unstable, a member or a gang, or a child that finds a toy and goes bang.

Yes, the Second Amendment is the law of the land, and like the parts of the Fourteenth Amendment, (that, ironically many who support the 2nd, seem to dispute in the 14...) it is pretty hard to come up with alternative interpretations, but I do not see how a nation that continues to watch its citizens kill each other cannot reevaluate it.

A well regulated [M/m]ilitia, being necessary to the security of a free State... What is a well regulated militia? Is it taking a gun safety course (which, by the way, is not a requirement). Is it showing up and proving proficiency with the weapon and qualifying to use it (also not required)? Or is it having the financial ability to go to a gun show and just pick one up? If I buy a bottle of alcohol and sell it to a friend (or stranger for that matter), it is illegal and I can wind up in some very serious hot water. If I buy a gun, and turn around and sell it, it is an unregulated transaction. That is what a gun show is. No checks, no proof of ID, no waiting period, none of the things that are required by law of commercial gun shops.

Similarly, as we have seen, the legal strictures on commercial gun shops are not exactly the tightest. For $400 I can apply to become a licensed gun shop. I do not even have to have a retail establishment. All I have to do is file the paperwork. And we are worried about terrorists? Why is it that my government can listen to my phone conversations with out a please and thank you but they cannot restrict gun sales? Ah, because the telephone (unlike the mail) was not around when the Constitution was drafted. Further, while I theoretically support the idea of an armed militia, the founding fathers did not have multi-shot, Teflon coated, high velocity firearms and rounds. And therein lies the crux of a very dicey argument.

So, back to the question of a well regulated militia, which to me is what the amendment hinges on. The argument for a "standing civilian army", which is what? Our friends at Wikipedia say this:

The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency; without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. (Wikipedia)

Traditionally, armies were conscripted from the able-bodied, usually male, population by the land owner or feudal lord. This is true even today in some parts of the world. Most, when they think of a militia think of the European model of mandatory service that every (male) citizen has to put in, (usually two years) before they are 30. Think of it like the National Guard, only involuntary. The Swiss went one step further and all males have to serve for life (or until retirement at age 65 I believe). It is quite disconcerting to see a 50 year-old man carrying a machine gun on the train from Bal to Zurich the first couple of times you see it. The key here is that the militia is well regulated. They are required to prove competency with a weapon, have specific instruction into maintenance and use and are drilled with a certain set of rights and responsibilities. One also assumes a certain level of routine health and welfare checks.

In the United States, all you need is the money and a driver's license.

One argument that was raised by an individual commenting on the Missouri tragedy was this:

So, just like at Virginia Tech, this idiot went into another "disarmed victim zone". He took out the two visible defenders, killed and injured at will until finally taken down by another officer. Once again, citizens and even lawmakers obeyed the laws and were sitting ducks for a whacko.

While there might be some argument made that, in the case of Virginia Tech, the shooter's kill total might have been reduced if someone had shot him sooner, I cannot quite support this argument. Yes, in this specific case, if there had been another armed person in the room, there would possibly be two dead instead of six with one critical, but I am not so sure. The second shooter would have to be highly trained (firing in a high adrenaline situation is, as many professionals will tell you, not easy), quick, and have a clean shot. Because the shooter first shot the police officer, and them moved across the council chamber, I am guessing that any self-defense shot could have endangered at least one or two other people even if the shooter was taken out with the first bullet. I have my doubts. Frankly, I do not think that the argument, while hard to dismiss from a purely theoretical perspective, would stand up to a practical examination. Further, it is a hypothetical that we will never know the outcome of because, other than statistical modeling, it is not something we can put to the test. So those in favor of carrying a weapon for protection cannot be convinced otherwise with proof because there is no way to provide that proof.

I want to close this with one more observation. The gang member who allegedly (after all, he has not been convicted yet) shot my friend's son is most likely an illegal immigrant. The trifecta if you will of messy situation. This is where all the marbles will come to rest. I am interested to see the outcome of the trial. My initial thoughts are this however. 1) A man is dead, and as far as I know, for no other reason that being in the wrong place at the wrong time. 2) A gun was used. 3) Because of his status, the shooter is more likely to be deported that incarcerated. End result? A slap on the wrist and another victim of gun violence.