The Second Amendment Is Obsolete: A More Extreme Perspective

Although the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a good set of general guidelines with admirable intent, they were written for a world that existed over 200 years ago, when our priorities were much different. As a result, those who insist on the strictest interpretation of all parts of those documents are insisting that, essentially, we deny any social, political, technological, and linquistic changes and achievements that have occurred since then. If we were to adhere strictly to every part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they were written, we would not only be denying the state of the nation as it exists today, we would be limiting our ability to compare and compete with the world around us as it makes progressive changes and moves into the future. That's why the Constitution was written with the option for amendments as needed.

For example, in the 1700s, automobiles didn't exist, so no one would have thought to have mentioned them in the Bill of Rights. But we've now had public access to automobiles in the U.S. for over 100 years and nearly universal automobile use for the past 50. In fact, in many parts of the country, no matter how poor you may be—and sometimes specifically because you are poor—being able to operate an automobile is essential to being able to earn money and continue even the most basic level of survival.

So why haven't we amended the Constitution to include a special right for automobiles? "You have the right to own and operate a motor vehicle to provide for the survival of yourself and your dependents," it might say.

Bringing Rights Up to Date

It hasn't been around for 100 years, but how about the Internet? Many politicians and analysts have observed that populations who don't have access to the Internet won't be able to compete with those who do in a modern global economy. For example, Vermont, which is planning to have high-speed Internet connections available for the entire state, including rural areas, by the end of 2013 (Remsen, 2013), seems to be implying that people have a right to a high-speed Internet connection. Hmm… "You have the right to high-speed access to the Internet, that it may aid you in realizing your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Why is it that guns, which are made solely to destroy living things—or blast apart clay disks, paper targets, cans, and bottles—get so much consideration today, when much more important things that enable us and improve our lives take a back seat?

Back in 1789, there were a whole slew of good reasons why guns appeared in the second amendment rather than the tenth. The most important reason was that the country had just emerged from a war on its own soil with a world power that was still a military threat. At the same time, the French to the north and the Spanish to the south were very real threats, as well. These three threats were realized before long in a naval conflict with France, the War of 1812, and the Mexican-American War. The justifiably angry Native Americans were also a threat. These threats coming from all sides from different hostile groups all justified "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" to maintain "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." And remember, the U.S. was still a wild land, with bears, wolves, and mountain lions still lurking about outside its towns and cities—kind of like L.A. is today.

Times have changed. We haven't had a war on continental U.S. soil for almost 150 years. And wild animal attacks happen now and then in very limited areas but can usually be prevented without the use of any weapon. In most parts of the country, we have no need for guns at all, let alone large quantities of guns capable of killing large quantities of people when wielded by one person. We also have no need for a militia, contrary to what a few backwards cults of nutcases might think. The second amendment is obsolete.

The Right to Avoid Registration

Evan Hughes, Vice President—NRA of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, was interviewed in a recent article regarding the group's stance on Obama's proposed changes to gun laws. (Burlington Free Press, 2013) Hughes' response was typical of other groups advocating unlimited gun ownership. When discussing requiring a background check for any transfer of gun ownership from one person to another (including within a family), the article said, he was of the opinion that "to do so would effectively mean requiring gun registration." And, the article continues, "That he sees as running afoul of the constitutional right to bear arms." [Italics mine]

What a horrible violation of privacy, having to register your gun! You should be able to keep your gun ownership a secret, so no one knows if you have one or not, right? That way, in effect, you're protecting the people who don't have guns, because bad people couldn't be certain whether those people might have guns or not. And if you start shooting at a bad person and seem to run out of bullets, they don't know if maybe you have half a dozen other guns concealed on your person, ready to blaze away. That's a real deterrent!

Well, a lot of us aren't interested in having that kind of deterrent all around us.

In the wild west, just about everyone had a gun, and people were killing each other all over the place every day. Maybe that was okay when it was one frontiersman shooting another on a deserted street, but we've got a lot more people around these days to get hit by the stray bullets of people who are ready to start shooting at a moment's notice.

Dirty Little Secret

On the other hand, the way some people talk about their guns, it's almost as if they're somehow ashamed of owning them, like it's their dirty little secret, comparable to a stash of nudie magazines. If we return to the car comparison, yes, it's a financial and logistical burden to have to register every car you own and renew that registration every year, but for some it's a matter of pride. If you've got a new Caddy, you're going to want the people at the DMV to know how sweet it is. And the millions of vanity plates out there are all proudly announcing, "Yes, I registered my car!" If gun owners think their guns are so important and impressive, why aren't they stepping up to proudly announce, and register, every gun they own?

I will admit that sometimes I've wished I could have kept it a secret what cars I've owned, like that one I bought for $600 that seized up and died in the middle of the highway, but I'm happy to make that sacrifice of my reputation for the sake of the benefits involved. If someone steals my car, however crappy, it's way more likely I'll get it back than it would be for me to get my TV back if someone stole that. My car's got a paper trail a mile long. If the cops were to stop the thief while he was driving around in my car, my registration would make it possible to immediately determine that he's doing something illegal.

Gun registration can offer even more important protections. For example, like myself, you may have seen a police drama on TV at some point in which an officer says something like "Looks like Jake has a permit for a pistol, so you guys be careful going in there." When police officers are going to the scene of a crime or disturbance, such as a domestic dispute, they'll be inherently safer if they know whether it's likely someone involved may have a gun—"armed and dangerous"—sound familiar? If they know, they can be sure to wear bullet-proof vests, keep their distance, approach more carefully, use a bullhorn, etc.

I hope I'm not being presumptuous in assuming that real-world police officers in at least some jurisdictions have access to information about who has gun permits. If they don't, they should. And, really, they should be able to access information about every single gun that's out there; not just handguns and AK-47s, but hunting rifles and shotguns, too. Why is that? Well, for one, at the short distances you'll find in an average house, a shotgun can kill you just as dead as any handgun can. The same would go for a hunting rifle, too, really; however, another example might be more fitting for hunting rifles.

The fact pattern of most mass shootings is that the shooters are, essentially, cowards. They choose defenseless and/or unsuspecting people, such as young children, movie-goers, teens, shoppers, vacationers, etc.; they either shoot them from far away or use a high-capacity weapon so that people can't defend themselves; and they kill themselves before they can be caught because they don't have the guts to face punishment. For the killers who shoot from far away, a hunting rifle would be far more accurate than a pistol.

Useful but Deadly

Returning to my earlier example, automobiles seem to be a good thing to compare with guns in other ways, too. Cars are tools that can be very useful in providing us with a means of survival, but they also can be very capable of killing people with just the flick of a wrist or even a finger. Granted, it's much more difficult to conceal a car in your coat pocket, but in most other respects, a car and a gun involve very similar dangers, in addition to whatever utility they may have.


Those who are totally against gun control feel that we all have the right to own whatever guns we have the resources to purchase, and that we all can use such guns to protect ourselves when we feel that our lives or property are being threatened by someone. Many people might disagree with that. For the sake of argument, would this same right carry over to automobiles? "I have the right to own whatever car I have the resources to purchase, and I can use it to defend my life and property if they're being threatened?" How many people think it's a good idea for it to be legal to use your car as a killing machine?

So far, we don't license people to drive with the provision that they can use their cars as killing machines. We license people to drive so they can operate a vehicle responsibly to meet their transportation, work, family, vacation, avocation, and survival needs. And how do you get a license to operate this device that can have positive and productive uses but also has the potential to very easily kill people?

The Mountain and the Molehill

As a typical example, for new drivers age 18 to 24, Maryland requires them to hold a learner's permit without a moving violation for nine months, take a driver's education course "consisting of a minimum of 30 hours classroom instruction and 6 hours behind the wheel instruction training" (Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration, 2013), and have a minimum of 60 hours of supervised driving practice, before they can even take a driver's test. If a new driver is 25 or older, the supervised practice requirement goes down to 14 hours, and they can take a driver's test 45 days after they get their permit.

The state also requires all new drivers to have a provisional, limited license first and wait 18 months before they can earn a full license. For all drivers with a provisional license, if they're convicted of a moving violation within 18 months, they have to go back and get more training, then be provisional again for 18 months before they can get a full license.

So, regardless of age, the least requirement is that a new driver needs to have a total of 50 hours of training and practice and has to wait 45 days before getting a provisional driver's license, and another 18 months to get a full license, in Maryland.

Comparable to most states, in Maryland, that's not the end of it. Once you have a driver's license, you have to have it renewed every five to eight years, and if you're age 40 or older, you have to have your eyesight checked while you're renewing to make sure you can still see where you're going. There aren't too many more requirements for a while, but once you become elderly, then some states, such as Maryland, may require you to actually retake the driver's test to show that you can still responsibly operate a vehicle.

If you have to go through that many hoops to be able to drive—and continue driving—a car, then why is it often much easier to buy a gun at a gun show, which you can do in some states without having any training or license whatsoever, or, only marginally less easy, buy a gun from a sporting goods store after completing some minimal training and waiting, at most, 40 days?

Well, in fact, in Maryland, all the education you need is to go to this site—http://www.mdgunsafety.com/—and take a 30-minute online class, then you fill out some paperwork, have a gun shop run a background check, and in eight days you can have your own handgun. Wow, that's way easier than getting a driver's license! Let the shooting begin!

Of course, I should note that Maryland requires you to renew your gun license after two years, then every three years after that. However, there's no vision requirement, and there are no limitations on those elderly licensees who may have limited abilities to use a gun accurately and safely. On the other hand, it's important to remember that, in that state, you don't need a license at all to buy a hunting rifle or a shotgun. You only need a license for handguns and assault rifles. That's comforting to know.

Easy Kill, Time to Go

How can anyone justify making it that easy to own and use something that can so easily kill people intentionally or by accident? And Maryland isn't even the weakest when it comes to gun purchase and registration requirements.

It's time to stop talking about the rights of gun owners and start talking about getting our priorities right. The right to be treated equally as a person, regardless of color, gender, sexuality, or gender preference; the right to have the access to the means for earning a living; the right to have access to the information you need to get along in life; even, heaven forbid, the right to all types of healthcare—those are all far more important than the right to own something that's made to kill. All this talk about compromise and all this kowtowing to the NRA is only serving to cloud much more important issues. Let's rescind the second amendment altogether and get on with it.

Sources:

Burlington Free Press. "Vermont leaders, police chiefs, gun advocates respond to Obama's gun-control proposals." January 16, 2013. http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130116/NEWS03/301160016/Vermont-leaders-police-chiefs-gun-advocates-respond-to-Obama-s-gun-control-proposals

Maryland Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services. "Firearms Safety Training." Accessed March 12, 2013. http://www.mdgunsafety.com/

Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration. "Maryland's Graduated Licensing System." Accessed March 12, 2013.
http://www.mva.maryland.gov/Driver-Services/RookieDriver/dschool.htm

Remsen, Nancy. "vt.Buzz: Marshall leaves Connect VT for industry job."
Burlington Free Press. January 14, 2013. http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130114/NEWS03/301140013/vt-Buzz-Marshall-leaves-Connect-VT-for-industry-job