Understanding the 2nd Amendment in the wake of tragedy
“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.”
Perhaps one of the most cleverly twisted amendments in our Constitution, it’s actual meaning is both readily apparent and masked by history. One thing is certain, it most certainly does not mean ‘guns without limits, to all’.
So how, in the face of tragedy, do you bring up the subject of Gun Control? How do you respond to those who blast their “Second Amendment Right!” rhetoric with all the authority of a stubborn child? I suggest first breaking down the Amendment, as they surely already have, and then reconstructing it with purpose and meaning.
Most commonly, people will short-hand quote “The right to bear Arms shall not be infringed!”. The first step is to deconstruct just this part. Hone in on “infringed”. Who is it, that shall not infringe upon that right? And to what extent is any action considered infringement? By the language of the Constitution, the “Who” is the Federal Government, and only the Federal Government. The Federal Government must not interfere with a State’s rights in regards to the subject of bearing arms. When someone argues that no State may pass Gun Control laws, this is your first counter.
Arguably, they will likely deflect to infringement. “Even if the State can make laws, they must not be laws that infringe!”. Well, yes. But that infringement has context. First, no right is without limitation. The Supreme court decided this, and even Justice Scalia agreed. The right to bear arms surely would never include nuclear warheads in your own garage, for a deliberately ridiculous example. More commonly, freedom of speech is a good example of the limitations of rights. You cannot threaten to kill someone without repercussion. It is illegal to yell “fire!” in a crowded building, it is illegal to call in bomb threats. The freedom of speech is limited to protection from the government retaliating for your expressions of dissenting or critical views. That includes, but is not limited to, the freedom of the press to report on the actions of the government in an open and critical way. If you can get them to agree that the first amendment even has limitations, then that is the first step to getting them to see that perhaps there were even meant to be limitations on guns.
Another argument I have heard against the Second Amendment being about Militia is “States don’t HAVE a militia, we have the US Military. You can’t tell me the Second Amendment is only for soldiers of the US Military!”. Well, they are correct. We don’t generally have Militias for our states, but we used to. Technically speaking, the National Guard is the nations largest Militia. encyclopedia.com
The “Gun Control is Racist, so are you a racist?” argument is also a favorite deflect and debate argument. For the most part, it is also true. Gun control has a long history of racial oppression as the driving force. Open carry laws were changed in 1967 specifically in response to the Black Panthers . This was known as the Mulford Act , it was not the first nor would it be the last time gun control laws were about oppression of Black Americans. Does that make you are racist? It depends, in a way it actually does. Racism is the system of racial oppression, a racist is a person who contributes to that oppression. In a way, by supporting Gun Control, you are supporting a system that has been used to oppress a race. Unfortunately, that makes you, at least by definition, a racist. However, you are not supporting a system for the intent or purpose to racially oppress. If anything, you are trying to alter that system. Are you a racist for supporting changing a system that is used to racially oppressed? In actuality, NO. Remember, it is ok when debating with someone to admit that they are partly correct, and cite the portions of which they are correct. It is important that you validate where they are right, so they know that you are both listening, and not automatically discounting everything they say. This also means they are far more likely to have an open debate, in which opinions might change, vs a closed argument, where it is all about “winning”.
The most important thing about responding to gun violence in the wake of tragedy is knowing the facts, anticipating their arguments, and being prepared to respond.
Leave a Comment