Monday, January 21, 2013

Gun Control

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past 250 years, you know that gun control is a big issue in the United States.  This issue has become ever more contentious recently, since the concept of children being put in harm's way has arisen.  As many of you know, I am fiercely independent when it come to politics, and rarely weigh in on such political measures for one side or the other.  Keeping with that tradition, I would like to propose an interesting idea I had, which I believe might solve our conundrum.

First, let me briefly paraphrase the concerns of each side of this issue.  One one side, chiefly liberals, want more gun restrictions in order to reduce gun violence.  From their point of view, the equation is simple, the easier it is to get guns (and specifically high powered guns with large magazines, or hand guns which are easily concealed), the more frequent gun violence will be.  On the other side, chiefly conservatives, believe that guns are a pivotal part of our culture stretching back to the founding of our country.  They like to point out that the vast majority of gun owners use them fully within the extents of the law, and that owning a gun is a good means of defense against criminals.

As usual, I believe both sides have some good points, and some bad ones.  Also as usual, I don't believe that the solution is somewhere in the middle, a moderation of both side's ideas; but is somewhere off to the side, a solution that is outside the box, and neither side has looked at.  One thing that rarely comes up in these debates is the actual 2nd amendment.  Many people like to refer to the 2nd amendment as, "The right to bear arms". However, that is not the full text.  The full text is as follows;

"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"

Why is it that nobody talks about a well regulated militia anymore?  The founding fathers did not have hunters, or gun enthusiasts in mind when writing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution; they were thinking about King George, who wanted to take their guns away so they could not revolt.  The 2nd amendment is not for sportsmen, or for security against home invasion; it is about making sure the government has reason to be afraid of its people.

Now the first response I usually get when bringing this up is how, in this day and age, the militia is for all intents and purposes, defunct.  What militias we have are groups of  back water gun enthusiasts, who could never hope to take on the US military in any significant way.   Furthermore, no citizen militia, no matter how large or organized, could ever hope to take on the US military.  Essentially, that the original purpose of the 2nd amendment no longer applies, and that it should either be eliminated, or quietly devolved to sportsmanship and personal security.

Of course, I disagree; and here is my solution to our gun "problem".  I would restrict the types of guns that individuals can own, to the types of guns used legally in hunting or for personal defense. Such restrictions could easily ban assault rifles, large capacity magazines, armor piercing bullets, and even hand guns. Basically all the things democrats would like to get rid of altogether.  However, on the other side, I would like to set up a system for official regulation of militias.  Militias would be afforded the right to own and use more high powered weapons, depending on their size and structure.  Small militias would be allowed to have assault rifles, medium militias allowed high capacity magazines and automatic weapons, large militias allowed to have artillery or military vehicles.  The weapons accessible would far exceed what is currently available to individuals.  Members of militias would all be corporately responsible for the safety, legal use, and care of the weapons at their disposal.

Now I'm sure this concept will raise a few eyebrows, but hear me out.  Think about all the ways guns are used inappropriately right now.  Lone suicidal men committing mass shootings in schools or public places, gang violence, crimes of passion, or just people who are simply not mentally healthy.  None of these people would have access to these types of guns from a well regulated militia.  What regulating militias does is keeps track of these guns, and holds people responsible for keeping them safe. If a militia made up of 100 people owns a few dozen automatic assault rifles, those people are financial and legally on the hook for what happens with those guns.  You had better believe that they will take significant measures to assure that one lone person cannot access the guns, and do something drastic with them.

Now there are still people who are saying, "Why? These militias still could not hope to fend off the Marines!"  I somewhat disagree.  If ever our nation was cast down into a civil war, and specifically one where primarily the people were fighting its government, the "military" would not be united.  Undoubtedly many of our soldiers would cast off their official orders and defect to side with the civilian population, bringing their advanced weapons and training with them.  We also need to keep in mind that in this type of war, the government could not freely use large scale weapons such as fighter jets, bombs, or heavy artillery against the civilian population.  Both the international community, and the government's interest is preserving its own resources would prevent it from doing so.  If this type of war ever did happen, it would look much like the war in Syria does now.  It would be primarily fought street by street with AK-47s.

So that is the jist of my idea.  Obviously the issue is more complicate than this, and my idea would have to be fleshed out quite a bit.  There is also the incriminating fact that I am not a gun or legal expert.  But, I just wanted to throw the idea out there.  What am I missing?  What angle haven't I thought of?  Your comments and criticism would be very welcome.