To the Editor:
“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.” You’ve just read the entire Second Amendment to the Constitution that everyone has been lecturing you about for decades. Read all the words, not just a phrase. And read them in context with all the other words.
Notice there is not a single word about bearing arms for your own personal security. That interpretation was added later by the Supreme Court in the “Heller case” as the meaning of the amendment (dare I speak the word?) evolved into its modern application. The only “security” mentioned in the plain language of the amendment is the security of the state, not the person. State militias in the 18th century depended upon armed civilians. No state national guards existed. If you believe interpretation of the Constitution should be limited to “original intent,” and you stay within the four corners of the language, the only intended “security” was for the state itself. So, it’s ironic that gun advocates like to think of themselves as preservationists of “original intent” of the founding fathers.
There’s another problem. “Originalism” is not history. It’s a term that started being used in the 1980s by people who thought they could read the minds of our founding fathers, which of course would coincide with their own opinion. If they read more history, they will discover that the founders did not “agree” on the Constitution. They compromised after arguing a lot with each other. We still argue a lot with each other. That’s been ingrained into our American culture from the beginning. Unlike today, however, they understood more than we do that there was no shame in compromise. To the contrary, the inability to compromise shows the arrogance of one who thinks he/she knows it all, when the self-evident truth is: none of us does.
Also, notice the second and third words of the amendment: “well regulated.” Plainly, there is nothing un-American about regulating guns.
With all due respect to my friends and relatives who are responsible gun owners, there are armed people out there who are full of resentment and are just waiting for an excuse to use their guns on other people. We’re well familiar with the lone fanatic who goes on a killing spree. The larger danger is when a group shares the same insanity. ISIS would be one example. A group of white nationalist Americans would be another. The excuse they will use to unleash their rage and bloodlust will be the same ones that have been used many times before: they will say, and sincerely believe, that they are victims of someone or something else. Or, they will claim to be protecting themselves from “tyranny.” You know, something noble to kill for.
We should distinguish the sane gun owners from the self-delusional ones who are just waiting to explode. For example, look for someone who doesn’t trust scientists (because they are part of the “elite”), while at the same time, they swallow conspiracy theories about the “deep state” they find on their favorite information silo on the internet, TV or radio. They act like they are the ones in the know, and everyone else who doesn’t buy into their narrative is a naïve fool. They whine about name calling and insulting comments, while simultaneously calling those who disagree with them “ignorant.” Recognize anybody you know?
So yes, read the Second Amendment. Think. Then make up your own mind.
Jim Tweed, Ocean City