Defending the 2nd Amendment

Every time there is a high profile gun-related crime, there are renewed calls for increased gun control.  Some even suggest that the 2nd Amendment should be abolished, or at least modified, to allow for greater regulation.

So, I think we should look at whether the intent behind the 2nd Amendment is still relevant today.

Let's start with the actual text of the law:

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.

What does this mean?

A well-regulated Militia

What is a "well-regulated Militia"?  How much regulation is intended, and what, exactly, was intended by the term "militia"? Militia in the eyes of the people in September of 1789, when the Bill of Rights was sent to the states for ratification?

Militia

I have no problem quoting from Wikipedia, in this instance, as the article has several citations and is curated by passionate people on both sides of any debate.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Any labels of rights as auxiliary must be viewed in the context of the inherent purpose of a Bill of Rights, which is to empower a group with the ability to achieve a mutually desired outcome, and not to necessarily enumerate or rank the importance of rights. Thus all rights enumerated in a Constitution are thus auxiliary in the eyes of Sir William Blackstone because all rights are only as good as the extent they are exercised in fact. 

While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms," and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution 

This is consistent with what I've seen in various other sources.  The militia is an armed populace able to defend themselves as well as to resist oppression.  So, it can be helpful in personal defense, national defense, and resisting oppression. Interesting that having weapons for hunting is not covered by the first clause, although it is allowed by the second clause.

Personal Defense

Hand guns, for the most part, are enough for personal defense against an assailant or an intruder. So why would metropolises like Chicago or Washington D.C. outlaw even handguns?  It didn't stop gun crime in either city. In 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the complete ban of handguns in Chicago and DC.

Still, handguns are not very accurate and may not bring down a deadly attacker.  In contrast, any rifle, is much more accurate, and an AR-15 rifle is very easy to use due to its design. For many, it would serve effectively as a deterrent as well as to bring down a a home invader with intent to harm.

National Defense

The United States armed forces are among the best in the world. We are fortunate to have such a large and well trained force, with state of the art equipment, defending us.

However,  there are also scenarios in which the military is engaged overseas or otherwise unable to effectively defend us against invasion. We can afford to deploy our forces in distant lands to defend ourselves without risk to civilians at home because of our National Guard and Coast Guard. Still, another deterrent is our heavily armed populace. 

The 1984 movie Red Dawn dramatized a local resistance to a Soviet invasion by a small number of well armed teenagers. The 2012 remake featured a North Korean invasion, but the basic premise was the same. While fictional and taking typical Hollywood liberties with realism, it illustrates the American desire for freedom and willingness to fight m, if necessary. 

Look at the resistance in Afghanistan to the Soviet Army in 1980 as an illustration of a motivated local populace fighting a much better armed Soviet military to a stalemate. Similarly, consider how effectively the Kurds in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey have fought to retain their identity and some degree of autonomy with hopes of re-establishing Kurdistan.

While not directly relevant to the 2nd Amendment, a complementary idea was part of the selling point for the Interstate Highway system.  Besides providing for freer movement of people and goods in peacetime, the highways were intended to allow the military to quickly move long distances in times of war.

Similarly, the interstates were supposed to have Air Force bases nearby at regular intervals. While not as many were built as planned, the intent was there. Perhaps that is the origin of the urban myth that that long straightaways along the interstate highways are intended to be airstrips in times of war when airports would have been destroyed. Certainly, they could serve that purpose, if needed.

Resisting Oppression

Similar to national defense, in order to resist oppression, the populace needs to have the same ability to defend against a well-armed and equipped force.

Remember, again, how the U.S. armed and provided tactical assistance to the native people of Afghanistan to fight the army of the Soviet Union.  This was the military of one of the two great super powers at the time trying to maintain control in a country ruled by the local communist party after a successful coup.  The Soviet army was an invading force in the eyes of most of the rural citizens but was taking the role by proxy of a powerful national army oppressing a proud and determined people.

While the Mujahideen were not as well armed as the Soviets and their communist allies within Afghanistan, they did have military weaponry.  They were able to hold their own for years, harassing the communists via guerrilla warfare using weapons from the armed militia serving the regional warlords as well as weapons brought from military deserters. Eventually they were provided with Stinger missiles from the U.S. and able to bring down Soviet aircraft.

Well regulated

Intent

The intent behind a "well regulated" militia was to ensure that every able-bodied man would be armed and ready if needed to serve.  There was not a large standing army, and the state militia were volunteers ready to defend their families and property. The National Guard certainly is a modern manifestation of this concept. The same can be said of the state and local law enforcement agencies. In the early years of this nation, the militia essentially served in both those roles.

Opinion

Restricting access to high capacity magazines, scary looking military-style rifles, etc. are symbolic actions to score political points.  In response to highly publicized incidents, it feels good to do something. However, those are arbitrary restrictions that do little to change things.

Regulation in the form of background checks, waiting periods, and mandatory training are reasonable, if properly restricted.

For example, background checks to identify and restrict access to guns for those with violent felony convictions or specific mental illnesses makes sense. Naturally, a waiting period is necessary to conduct the background checks.

Training (such as for concealed carry) is also reasonable. It is important to know how to use a weapon safely as well as to understand the risks, liabilities, and responsibility that comes with fun ownership.

Disarming the populace is not likely to ever happen.  Amending the Constitution is intentionally difficult, and there would not be 3/4 of the states agreeing.

The Solution

So, how can we stop the mass shootings in schools and other public places?

Many gun control advocates will say that the only solution is to take guns away from anyone outside of law enforcement, security professions. and the military. However, that isn't possible with the 2nd Amendment. and considering that criminals will still have guns, it will only embolden them.

Gun rights advocates will point to concealed carry and guns in homes as deterrents. Arming teachers in schools is also sometimes suggested. However, while there may be a deterrent effect, it won't stop the tragedies.

The only truly effective solution is to teach personal responsibility and to change the hearts of people. Unfortunately, while we need to do that to reduce fumes violence, the violence will not come until the return of Jesus Christ. when all things are made new again.