All right, Dave, I’ll take this one on from the other side. Unlike you, I did not grow up around firearms, have never owned one, wouldn’t know how to use it if I did. That doesn’t mean you have to be like me. I don’t want to take your gun away or deprive you of your right to self-defense. I totally respect your right to keep and bear arms.
What I don’t understand is why supporters of gun rights insist on taking the most extreme, maximalist positions about them. Anyone can own and operate a motor vehicle, but first you have to take driving lessons, pass a road test for safety and proficiency, register your vehicle, and pay a license fee. Yet nobody claims the government is infringing your right to drive a car. This is what we mean when we talk about “common-sense gun regulation.” I would think that responsible gun owners, of all people, would understand the wisdom of making sure people are trained in their safe and proper use before being allowed to carry one.
As far as gun registration is concerned, it’s not some nefarious government plot to confiscate your weapon. It’s to enable law enforcement to trace its provenance in case it’s used in the commission of a crime. Surely that’s a legitimate public interest?
What I find truly alarming is this idea that government is a sinister enemy to be met with armed resistance. Government is nothing other than the instrument of the people for achieving collective purposes beyond our individual reach. Establishing justice. Providing for the common defense. Promoting the general welfare. Securing the blessings of liberty.
Did you notice which item was missing from that list? Insuring domestic tranquility. The guys who wrote the Constitution were keenly aware of the dangers of insurrection or rebellion from within. That’s why they wrote in provisions [1.8.16] for a militia, to be organized, armed, and disciplined by order of Congress, trained and officered by the several states, and available to be called forth at need, under presidential command [2.2.1] “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions” [1.8.15].
And, indeed, we have such a militia, established by Congress pursuant to these enumerated powers. It’s called the National Guard. Not some ragtag rabble parading around in the woods plotting to overthrow the government.
And this is, in turn, the reason for the Second Amendment, clearly stated in its so-called “prefatory clause”: to maintain the well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state. Not to defend the people from the government, but to defend the government against insurrection or rebellion by the people. Like Shays’ Rebellion in the 1780s (before the adoption of the Constitution) and the Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, vigorously suppressed by George Washington and his treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton. Or the rabble that stormed the U. S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
I offer all this in the spirit of the Penguin’s article, explaining why I think what I think. I’m fine with your right to keep and bear arms. Why can’t we just do it with common sense?
