Egypt, Tucson, and the Right to Bear Arms
"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."
One of the most surprising non-occurrences in the wake of the shooting injuries and deaths in Tucson at Gabby Gifford’s “meet your congresswoman” event has been a serious discussion of gun rights. It seems that the entire “public nation,” from President Obama to the press in all its forms, has simply accepted as fact the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment guarantees to individuals the right to bear arms. Even liberal MSNBC TV commentator Chris Matthews began a discussion of the gun issue recently by saying, “Now I know that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to carry guns. . . .”
But this interpretation of the Second Amendment is not the traditional interpretation. Most legal scholars throughout much of the twentieth century—believed that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of states to form militias—but did not understand it to be about individual gun ownership (Lapore). Even Robert Bork argued that the second amendment works to “guarantee the rights of states to form militias, not for individuals to bear arms” (Lapore).
Then, in the last three decades of the twentieth century, lawyers for the NRA began to argue that the second amendment gave individuals the right to bear arms. This came about because of a push for gun legislation after the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and the attempt on Ronald Reagan’s life. Ironically, Reagan was the first presidential candidate to get an endorsement from the NRA because of his position on guns.
Former Chief Justice Warren Burger said the NRA’s interpretation of the Second Amendment was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime” (Lapore). Burger also argued—in his retirement—for a rejection of the NRA’s reading of the Second Amendment.
Burger notes that the meaning of the clause cannot be understood without looking at “the purpose, the setting, and the objectives” (Burger) of those who drew up the amendment. People of that time were worried about that “monster,” national government, and especially a national or standing army. (The First Congress limited the size of the national army to 840 men.) Most people thought of themselves as citizens of New Jersey or Virginia, etc., rather than as citizens of the United States. “To the American of the 18th Century, his state was his country and his freedom was defended by his militia,” Burger explains (Burger).. To ally the fear of the national government, the first amendment granted states the right to maintain a militia. The state militias would comprise the army that would defend the United States—as had been the case in the Revolutionary War.
Burger argues—and the construction of the sentence supports him—that the right to keep and bear arms is predicated upon the necessity of a well regulated militia that can protect the state. You can keep and bear arms to guarantee the state’s freedom, it says. The opening clause of the amendment, an absolute clause, can be rewritten accurately only by making it an adverb clause beginning with the word because—“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. . . .” So, we have a causal relationship in the statement—because the state needs protection, you can keep and bear arms.
Gun advocates argue that the amendment grants the right to bear arms for national and personal security, but it is clear that the amendment mentions only the security of the state.
More that two hundred years after the Second Amendment was approved by congress, we can see why its historical context is so important. After numerous wars, an army that has increased from its original 840 men to hundreds of thousands of men and women, and a Department of Defense that has an arsenal large enough to blow up the world, a state militia is no longer necessary or able to defend a state against our national government nor is it needed for defense against outside forces.
Of course this does not mean that all guns now need to be outlawed, but it does allow for the regulation of some guns and the outright banning of certain guns for the well-being of the populace.
In fact, to those who argue that we need guns to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government, it might be argued that if we ever needed to overthrow our national government because it has ceased to govern justly, guns would be just about the least effective tool for such an attempt. As I watched the relatively peaceful revolt taking place in Egypt against a government that had become intolerable, I couldn’t help but think, “Thank God they don’t have guns.” What would have happened if that mass of people had all arrived in Tahrir Square wielding guns? Ancient scimitars or the occasional screwdriver do not invite a violent response. But if those protestors had arrived with automatic weapons, they would have been met with the full might of Mubarak’s military, and blood would have filled the square.
None of us knows how the Egyptian protest will play out, but recent history shows us that in the modern age, because of the power of the mass media, peaceful protests usually yield positive results, but violent revolutions usually lead to more violence and continued tyranny. Look at the great revolution in India brought by that peaceful little man, Ghandi. Look at Mandela and South Africa. Look at Poland’s break with the Soviet Union led by Lech Walesa and others.
The tragedy of the Gabby Gifford shootings and the great hope of the protests in Egypt both suggest that easily obtainable guns will not provide for the security of individuals or defense of the country. Rather, they will be counter productive.
Works Cited
Burger, Warren. “The Right to Bear Arms.” Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990.
Lapore, Jill. “The Commnadments: The Constitutions and its Worshipers.” The New Yorker, January 17, 2011.
One of the most surprising non-occurrences in the wake of the shooting injuries and deaths in Tucson at Gabby Gifford’s “meet your congresswoman” event has been a serious discussion of gun rights. It seems that the entire “public nation,” from President Obama to the press in all its forms, has simply accepted as fact the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment guarantees to individuals the right to bear arms. Even liberal MSNBC TV commentator Chris Matthews began a discussion of the gun issue recently by saying, “Now I know that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to carry guns. . . .”
But this interpretation of the Second Amendment is not the traditional interpretation. Most legal scholars throughout much of the twentieth century—believed that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of states to form militias—but did not understand it to be about individual gun ownership (Lapore). Even Robert Bork argued that the second amendment works to “guarantee the rights of states to form militias, not for individuals to bear arms” (Lapore).
Then, in the last three decades of the twentieth century, lawyers for the NRA began to argue that the second amendment gave individuals the right to bear arms. This came about because of a push for gun legislation after the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy and the attempt on Ronald Reagan’s life. Ironically, Reagan was the first presidential candidate to get an endorsement from the NRA because of his position on guns.
Former Chief Justice Warren Burger said the NRA’s interpretation of the Second Amendment was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime” (Lapore). Burger also argued—in his retirement—for a rejection of the NRA’s reading of the Second Amendment.
Burger notes that the meaning of the clause cannot be understood without looking at “the purpose, the setting, and the objectives” (Burger) of those who drew up the amendment. People of that time were worried about that “monster,” national government, and especially a national or standing army. (The First Congress limited the size of the national army to 840 men.) Most people thought of themselves as citizens of New Jersey or Virginia, etc., rather than as citizens of the United States. “To the American of the 18th Century, his state was his country and his freedom was defended by his militia,” Burger explains (Burger).. To ally the fear of the national government, the first amendment granted states the right to maintain a militia. The state militias would comprise the army that would defend the United States—as had been the case in the Revolutionary War.
Burger argues—and the construction of the sentence supports him—that the right to keep and bear arms is predicated upon the necessity of a well regulated militia that can protect the state. You can keep and bear arms to guarantee the state’s freedom, it says. The opening clause of the amendment, an absolute clause, can be rewritten accurately only by making it an adverb clause beginning with the word because—“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. . . .” So, we have a causal relationship in the statement—because the state needs protection, you can keep and bear arms.
Gun advocates argue that the amendment grants the right to bear arms for national and personal security, but it is clear that the amendment mentions only the security of the state.
More that two hundred years after the Second Amendment was approved by congress, we can see why its historical context is so important. After numerous wars, an army that has increased from its original 840 men to hundreds of thousands of men and women, and a Department of Defense that has an arsenal large enough to blow up the world, a state militia is no longer necessary or able to defend a state against our national government nor is it needed for defense against outside forces.
Of course this does not mean that all guns now need to be outlawed, but it does allow for the regulation of some guns and the outright banning of certain guns for the well-being of the populace.
In fact, to those who argue that we need guns to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government, it might be argued that if we ever needed to overthrow our national government because it has ceased to govern justly, guns would be just about the least effective tool for such an attempt. As I watched the relatively peaceful revolt taking place in Egypt against a government that had become intolerable, I couldn’t help but think, “Thank God they don’t have guns.” What would have happened if that mass of people had all arrived in Tahrir Square wielding guns? Ancient scimitars or the occasional screwdriver do not invite a violent response. But if those protestors had arrived with automatic weapons, they would have been met with the full might of Mubarak’s military, and blood would have filled the square.
None of us knows how the Egyptian protest will play out, but recent history shows us that in the modern age, because of the power of the mass media, peaceful protests usually yield positive results, but violent revolutions usually lead to more violence and continued tyranny. Look at the great revolution in India brought by that peaceful little man, Ghandi. Look at Mandela and South Africa. Look at Poland’s break with the Soviet Union led by Lech Walesa and others.
The tragedy of the Gabby Gifford shootings and the great hope of the protests in Egypt both suggest that easily obtainable guns will not provide for the security of individuals or defense of the country. Rather, they will be counter productive.
Works Cited
Burger, Warren. “The Right to Bear Arms.” Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990.
Lapore, Jill. “The Commnadments: The Constitutions and its Worshipers.” The New Yorker, January 17, 2011.
Comments
Post a Comment