A Whole-Hearted Attempt To Satisfy The Second Amendment 

The purpose of this writing is simple: To present a proposal under which the laws of the land may be upheld, the rights and freedoms listed in the Constitution maximized, and the potential for tragic misuse and circumvention of the law minimized. I realize that this is no easy task, and politicians, lawyers, and theologians have been arguing this topic for decades. I recognize going in that my plan is not flawless – indeed, quite the opposite, for this is a mere rough sketch – but I am presenting this idea out into an open forum. 

To begin with, I will admit my bias being strongly in favor of gun-owner’s rights. I believe the desire to ban guns outright is silly, and I consider that those who fear firearms without taking the time to educate themselves about them are foolish. However, I do not adhere to the belief in which firearm ownership and use should be subject to no restrictions at all. I do not find either extreme to be based on reality, honor, or fact. 

Now, for the purposes of laying out this proposal, I am going to have to assume several arguments – all of which have been the subject of intense debate – in order to reach the conclusions that I do. I understand that none of the following arguments have an easy answer, and I understand that many will disagree on which side of the arguments I take. I ask that any critics please take into account that I am not declaring this as the “end-all, be-all” word on Gun Control, and I further ask that they keep their nitpicking to a reasonable level (for I know, from experience, that such criticism is bound to happen).  Now that I have this disclaimer out of the way (it normally wouldn’t be necessary, but I’m aware of what a hot topic this is), I will present the arguments and the stances on those arguments that I am using for the purposes of this essay. 

I.                    First and foremost, I am assuming that an Armed Populace does, indeed, act as a deterrent for a would-be tyrant or dictator. Further, I am assuming that this deterrent keeps away the very conditions necessary for a tyrant/dictator to reach the foyer in the first place.

II.                 I am assuming the Individual Rights stance of the wording of the Second Amendment, as opposed to the States Rights translation.

III.               I am assuming that the Militia is composed of all adult men and women in the United States. Similarly, I am rejecting that the Militia is the National Guard, and only the National Guard.

IV.              I am assuming mild limits on what a private citizen can and cannot own. Any armament that poses a hazard to bystanders, even in a passive state – such as a nuclear weapon – is not protected by the Second Amendment. As a means of keeping the debate reasonable, I am assuming that “Arms” refers solely to weapons of Singular Destruction, as opposed to weapons of Mass Destruction. Further, I am rejecting the notion that uncontrollable weapons – such as nerve gas or biological weapons – are protected.

V.                 For the sake of simplification, and thusly, brevity, I am not going to deal with the issue of fully automatic weaponry and/or sawed-off shotguns. I am referring to semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns with a barrel length greater than 18”. In addition, I am dealing with these weapons in a general sense, rather than referring to specific arms of each class.

VI.              I am assuming that the presence of a gun in the home does indeed increase the likelihood of a fatal accident. I am also assuming that a gun makes an excellent mode of protection in the case of an illegal intrusion into the home. Further, I am assuming that restrictions that hamper a person’s ability to quickly draw and fire their weapon violate their right to bear arms.

VII.            I am assuming that the statistical evidence which indicates a high level of passive uses of a gun, for the purposes of defense, are accurate.

VIII.         I am assuming that the existence of a black market for guns is a given, and impossible to eradicate unless we cease the manufacture of all gun production worldwide, and destroy the vast majority of all such weapons immediately. Unfortunate as it may be, firearms have become an undeniable fact in our worldwide society.

IX.              I am assuming that the presence of firearms has a negligible effect on the increase in crime rates, and that without a gun many criminals will find another method to do their dirty work. 

Now, I will get on with the meat of this essay. First, I will point out that there are two aspects of the Second Amendment which must be satisfied: The term “Well-Regulated”, and the phrase “The Right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The former satisfaction necessitates the existence of certain levels of Gun Control in the first place, while the latter indicates that any Gun Control measures not unduly restrict a person’s freedom if that person abides by the laws of the land. There lies the problem, of course… finding a balance that equally satisfies both demands. And, yes, I recognize that the term “unduly restricts” is in and of itself a problematic phrase. 

Allow me to explain. In our country a person is considered Innocent Until Proven Guilty. An undue restriction is one that assumes suspicion on a person that has yet to commit any crime. The extreme edge of “undue restriction” is the desire to ban guns entirely. But other areas of debate, such as trigger locks, taxations on ammunition, and/or registration, are less obvious. However, I will sum up my response in a single sentence: “If it makes you beholden to another entity, it is not a right.” 

So, with that I reject the notion of mandatory trigger locks, registration, or taxes. Any and all Gun Control should be aimed at minimizing the likelihood of abuse or negligence, and shouldn’t hamper a law-abiding citizen’s ability to exercise his or her rights. Similarly, gun “fingerprinting” – the practice of documenting the grooves left in a bullet after it is fired – is another proposed method of Control that simply has no teeth; by very nature of the fact that it allows Government officials to hold sway over private citizens without providing a significant impact on crime prevention. 

However, we simply cannot have an obstacle-free avenue of purchase for those who intend to buy a gun, unfortunately. There are those in our society who seek only to do harm, and those with instabilities and sociopathic tendencies do exist. Any freedom granted to a law-abider could potentially be misused and exploited by a law-breaker. Therefore, I declare my approval for instant background checks for licensed gun dealers. However, this would be a restriction on commercial trade only, as commerce is subject to regulation. The actions of individuals, however, are not subject to discretionary action unless the rights of another are violated. While the potential for violation of rights exists, it is simply immoral to punish people for what they may potentially do. 

As for those who would break the law, let me say this: we cannot possibly predict with any convincing level of accuracy who will be a criminal and who wouldn’t. Human nature has proven itself to be wily and unpredictable, and there’s no way of knowing when someone could “snap”. The best we can do is allow the maximum amount of protection to people who would otherwise be defenseless, and require strict punishment for those who would try to prey on the perceived defenseless. To this end, despite the amount of politically-incorrect stigma it may carry, I am a firm backer of Concealed-Carry permits. I justify this by very virtue of the fact that a gun is the best person-to-person weapon around. There are only two tried-and-true methods of defense against a gun… another gun, or a bulletproof vest… and the latter fails against higher-speed ammunition. 

It’s been contended that, for those who commit a crime with a gun, the gun-related charges are often plea-bargained away, so as to allow the DA to be rewarded with the “better” charge on his record of successful prosecutions (i.e.- “rape” or “assault” brings more prestige to his political career than “possession of a handgun”). While I certainly am not condemning this practice – they do what they can to get the bad guys behind bars – I am recognizing that criminal gun use should certainly constitute stiffer penalties than are normally received. Thusly, I would recommend altering the law so as to make gun-related charges a different classification of offense. Instead of simply tacking on another charge to a criminal’s list of offenses, gun charges carry an automatic extension of whatever sentence he eventually receives. Committing a crime with a gun receives an automatic 5 years in prison, in addition to whatever other sentence he gets. First-degree murder with a gun should receive the stiffest penalty available by the law… life in prison or execution, depending on your stance on the issue (I make no concrete stance either way… at least, not in this writing). 

Now, I must state again that this is only a rough draft. I am positive that there are those with more experience who could tweak the above proposition to better fit our legal system. However, my basic proposal remains the same. Now, on to other issues… 

In order for a gun to serve as an armament, it must be usable at a moment’s notice. A gun is a weapon, period, and is meant to act as one at all hours of the day. Without ammunition, or with a device hampering the ability to fire ammunition, a gun is little more than a fancy paperweight. In addition, since the Right to Bear Arms applies to all adults, everyone above the age of 18 (legal age) has the right to bear a gun if they choose to do so. However, it is NOT necessary, to satisfy the demand of the Right to Bear Arms, that each person of legal age have a dozen weapons strapped to various parts of their body, ready to take on a fully armored battalion. Such behavior is quite overkill, and thus is not subject to the “well-regulated” aspect of the Second Amendment. 

The suggested use of a handgun, rifle, or shotgun insists on using two hands for maximum control of the weapon. Seeing as how the average human has – surprise! – two hands, this would require at least one instantly-accessible and useful firearm for every able-bodied adult in order to satisfy the Right to Bear Arms. 

As much as I dislike the notion of such a restriction of guns, perhaps it may be necessary to allow only a single instantly usable firearm, per adult, per household. All other weapons must be stored away, whether in a gun locker or with a gun lock. I will admit that this isn’t something that I am fully comfortable with, and I reserve the right to alter this notion at any time that I want. But my purpose for proposing such a limitation is two-fold: it allows a person to have a means of defending himself, and it minimizes the risk of accidents or irresponsible behavior. Of course, there’s no possible, predictable means of enforcing such a restriction, short of tacking-on an additional Negligence charge in addition to any others that can stem from an accidental firearm discharge or irresponsible behavior, so I would propose making this law an “after-the-fact” punishment only… that is, a person can not be punished unless he or she does something to violate a pre-existing proper-handling law. 

The above proposal, in short, would not punish anyone until “Something Happens”. Which means that the police cannot go busting down doors in random searches (obviously), and that reports of “negligent behavior” from third-parties will not include the above suggested charges. Poor judgment and bad gun storage will result in an additional punishment if and only if the irresponsible behavior produces negative results. The basis for adding this stipulation is thusly: One can have guns lying all about their room and still act responsibly around them. The idea of requiring all but one gun to be stored away would act more as a recommendation than anything else, which would allow individuals to use their own precautionary measures around guns. The idea of punishing someone for irresponsible behavior would only come into play if, yes, they indulge in irresponsible behavior… such behavior would be identified by a gun-related accident or criminal activities, and would only apply after-the-fact. 

Again, the punishment for irresponsible behavior with firearms should be strict… though not extreme. 

The necessity for low-restriction gun ownership is a factor of the fact that there is a thriving black market for firearms. In order to destroy this black market entirely, one would have to halt the manufacture of firearms worldwide. Given the potency of guns in wartime, peacekeeping operations, or simple policing work, stopping the manufacture of such valuable tools is so unlikely that it verges on impossible. Any black market is formed when a highly desirable product is made difficult to acquire (look to the example of drugs to see this). In effect, Gun Control itself necessitates less Gun Control. However, one simply cannot abolish all restrictions on a dangerous item simply because it creates a greater need for that product. 

Given that we can’t realistically remove guns from society, and given that we can’t reasonably abolish all forms of gun control, what are we left with? Providing a means for which law-abiding, responsible citizens can defend themselves. In other words, we cannot unreasonably restrict a person’s ability to acquire a gun, if that person is a responsible member of society. Because of this, 30-day waiting periods are useless. I understand that some people desire a waiting period because it gives the authorities a chance to verify if a person is a danger or not. But let me ask you… when was the 30-day figure deduced? Not too long ago in normal terms, but in technological terms, it’s been ages. There is very little pertinent information that cannot be found out now with a near-instantaneous background check that will be uncovered after an additional 29 days. Basically, a 30-day waiting period just translates into 30 days in which a person is rendered practically defenseless. 

A background check should check three things: Criminal record, current police charges and court orders (such as restraining orders), and tax records. The first two should be obvious… the latter can serve to indicate whether or not a person is “in the red” financially. Desperate people try desperate things. In either case, if any of those three categories set up a “red flag”, the gun purchase is denied and the customer has to wait for a more thorough background check. If neither of those categories are triggered (no pun intended), the customer gets his gun. 

I am considering the possibility of also having the instant background check search for known acquaintances with an outstanding criminal record/warrant for arrest. I’m hesitant on this one, because on the one hand it would help minimize the possibility of someone purchasing a gun for someone else. But, on the other hand, this could possibly lead to an abuse of law in which a person gets punished for another’s actions. If such a stipulation were implemented, many would insist on it being carefully outlined and controlled. 

In any case, an instant background check would use records that already exist: Police records and tax records. Creating a new system for controlling guns is unnecessary, and would undoubtedly be expensive (if the measures offered by some Gun Control advocates are enacted, that is). 

A gun is at it’s most dangerous when in the hands of an irresponsible person, and is at it’s least dangerous when in the hands of a responsible person. Therefore, we should reward people who take the time and inclination to educate and train themselves in the proper uses, storage, and handling of a firearm. Classes should be offered… but, as we’ve seen in the example of New York State, the stipulations and requirements of these classes can be manipulated so as to render it nearly impossible for someone to complete them. Therefore, if such classes would be offered – but not required, mind you – the guidelines and curriculum should be carefully and exactly laid out, so as to maximize the training that the attendees get. In addition, the instructors and administrators would have to follow very specific guidelines so as to prevent abuse of the system. 

Rewards for completing one of these classes would be an assumption of heightened responsibility on the part of the person who completed the course. Concealed-Carry permits, for example, shall be granted. They’ll be allowed to transport guns and ammunition. They will, in short, be trusted by society with a high level of responsibility with regards to a dangerous weapon. 

I cannot stress enough, however, that a safety course cannot and should not be a requirement for the exercising of rights. Any such course would, by the very nature of human rights, be an option, an add-on to those who want to “go the extra mile”. But there’s more than one way to train in firearm use, and a person should not be assumed to be dangerous or irresponsible until he or she proves so. 

These proposals are, in my mind, very reasonable, and should satisfy most of the desires of all but the most extreme advocates for either side of the issue. To me, a gun is a valuable and essential tool, and those who fear them and dislike them are depriving themselves of an important lesson of life. Guns offer power to the wielder, and such power carries an enormous duty and responsibility. Those who prove themselves untrustworthy lose the right, but those who remain trustworthy to the laws of the land should not be deprived of their rights. It is an absolute right to defend yourself, from an real or reasonably perceived danger, from control of others over yourself, or from tyranny and injustice.