I have decided to share my thoughts about gun control in America. I was raised in the late thirties and early forty’s when most of us where intimately effected by World War II. We knew folks who returned from that battle having been trained in the use of fire arms often to devastating effect. We were in many ways a gun toting culture. One of the effects that all that had on me was manifest in how we played in my small neighborhood. There were good guys and bad guys and we all had guns. In fact we used to take pride in how we acted out being shot. Early on we separated fact from fiction, there was no blood.
Later on many of us learned how to hunt, how to participate in historical reenactments and watched endless movies with violent themes. We continued knee deep in distancing ourselves from the horror of war and tried to the best of our abilities to separate guns from those who actually used them. In doing so we rationalized our attachment to an ancient document the Second Amendment.
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.
Recent dialogue from many sources has taken on the sense of a win lose contest where one side wants to have guns and the other wants no guns and each rationalizes the language of the amendment to support their position. On the one hand the amendment describes a right; on the other the amendment describes a well regulated militia for which there is NO APARENT NEED. Perhaps then there may be some clarity in understanding the word militia.
Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language
Militia 1.a) orig., any military force b) later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called out in time of emergency 2. in the U.S. all able bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not already members of the regular armed forces; members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard Navy and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia.
Opinion
The Bill of Rights refers to a well regulated militia, well organized or not is not addressed.
However it can be argued that States have legitimized a constitutional right on behalf of their citizens by the establishment of a process for the licensing of those individuals that qualify to own and carry arms for the purpose of recreation, hunting and self protection. States do so by the issuance of licenses to individuals to purchase and carry arms, transport arms, purchase ammunition and discharge such arms in well regulated locations. States also have established well documented regulations about the inappropriate use of firearms and the consequences for such use. All of which has the distinct look of well regulated.
The question then is the ownership and possession of firearms sufficiently well regulated to ensure the safety of the user AND the nonuser? Guns don’t kill people, people do- we seem to understand this about cars and planes, not so much about guns. In order to own a vehicle it must be licensed and ensured if it is going to be driven on the nation’s highways. If it, the vehicle is going to be driven it needs to be done so with an individual licensed to drive, in order to have that license the individual has to meet certain requirements and standards
How about a comprehensive continuing education requirement in order to be granted a permit to carry? There are many steps that can be taken short of a challenge of the Second Amendment. We have a well regulated militia BECAUSE we have the right to keep and bear arms. If the regulations are insufficient then that is the route to resolving the argument against guns per se.
Regardless the challenge in either case, retain the right or eliminate the right, is to mitigate a catastrophic divide in our Nation. There will be those who demonstrate vehemently against any attempt to further regulate the ownership and use of firearms. There will also be those who believe that increased scrutiny of gun ownership would mean a further attempt to eliminate the right. Inevitably the consequence of the attempt to or fact of an enactment to eliminate the right to bear arms may create an irresolvable divide in our Nation.
A successful resolution of the gun issue if at all possible can only happen when the opposing parties can somehow come to see the benefit to the Nation as a whole undoubtedly with some sacrifice on every party’s behalf.
Gut!
I have written this piece as an expression of my own ambivalence about the issue- guns or no guns. I gave 7 years of my life on active duty in the United States Navy after a three year inactive reserve duty in the United States Army. In both cases there was and remains an intense focus on guns of many types and sizes. We learned how to tend to them, how best to utilize them in the course of service and ultimately how not to depend on them too much. We were well trained and many of my fellow service members actually used guns in the line of fire. I did not.
On the other hand I have been a member of a faith community for over 70 years in which we learned to abhor violence, love our neighbor and support a nation that promotes freedom for all. In doing so I am left with the question is there REALLY a need the possession of a gun in the unorganized militia.
I love the idea of owning a gun-why? I think it is because having one is ingrained in my brain. Having one has been a part of my life yet I have not possessed any for the last 5 years when I sold all of them because I am coming to terms with the question- do I actually think I could or would shoot someone in self defense? What if I made a mistake? On the one hand I imagine I could and that freaks me out. On the other hand I think I would not and what does that make me-weak?
While I am working this out I choose not have guns in my home. I may not be right about this however I have come to believe choosing to own a gun in this world where it is legal to do so is a very personal question that has to include all of the consequences.