So Mr. Trump has been in office for 100 days as of tomorrow. In (um, I guess?) celebration of this, he spoke to the National Rifle Association today. He stated that his presidency is bringing about the end of an "eight-year assault" on Second Amendment gun ownership rights. I find this troubling. What exactly are the rights conferred by the Second Amendment, and why were they deemed so important?
Let's start with the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which is at the heart of the endless debate around owning guns. Amendment 2, The Right to Bear Arms, reads, "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." The question is....what exactly does this statement mean?
We'll start with "Militia" (note the capitalization, which implies the importance of the word). What is a militia? Originally, militias were organizations by individual states that were designed to protect each state against threats and/or a tyrannical national government. We don't really have these organizations anymore. We do have modern, somewhat similar versions: The National Guard (not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a different, federal-level organization) is established and controlled by each US state (and 4 territories), and is called upon by the states' governors to respond to disasters like floods and hurricanes. When you read the above Amendment, militias seem to be the purpose of citizens being armed. I'm not sure that our modern militias exist to protect the "freedom" of the state though, that doesn't seem to be in their job description. I'm not even sure what a "free" state refers to...is Oregon more or less free than Kansas? Or Colorado? Or New Hampshire (after all, their motto is "Live free or die"!) How do you measure that? And what about the words "well-regulated"? Regulated around what, and by whom? Does this mean that their ownership and/or use of arms is regulated? And finally, what exactly is meant by the word "arms"? Does that refer to knives, muskets, cannons? I'm pretty sure that it didn't refer to AK-47 assault rifles, or nuclear missiles, because those didn't exist at the time Amendment 2 was written.
My point is this: the wording of this Amendment is very unclear, and it was written at a time when the concern of an oppressive federal government attacking its citizens was on the minds of the authors of the Bill of Rights. The USA of today has very different concerns. We need to take care in our translation of Amendment 2, and remember that the Bill of Rights was written to protect individuals and states, and make sure that our legislation concerning guns is fulfilling that purpose.
Hi Ronnie,
To start, thank you for your service. I wish that I could give you more than a thank you, because the service that you (and all the others in the military) provide(d) to this country is invaluable, and deserves a lot more than these two little words. But "thank you" is all I have to give, so I will just offer that with all sincerity. Secondly, thank you for writing this post. It's good to hear from your perspective. I have never served, and service in the military is not something that's close to my life. While my father was in the Navy, that was before I was born, so it's never really been a factor in my life. My step-sister was just promoted to Senior Master Sergeant in the Navy, and I am very proud of her. Interestingly, she and I have had some enlightening conversations about healthcare.I have lived in other countries in the world that have universal healthcare. When I returned to the States, it was a struggle to get insurance, as I had pre-existing conditions (this was before the ACA went into law). Without health insurance, most doctors wouldn't see me. This caused me much fear and stress and physical pain. When talking to my step-sister about this, she stated, "I have a hard time commenting about "free" healthcare, as I have always had it (career military) and so has my family. I can't imagine how it is for non-military to have to worry about it and try to afford it". This conversation made me really think about healthcare accessibility.
I am grateful that my step-sister and her family are secure in their health care coverage. They absolutely should be. And when she retires in a couple of years, they still should be. After being deployed on four occasions, I think she damn-well deserves the peace of mind that she and her husband and kids will be taken care of when the need arises. I am happy that the tax dollars I pay will help fund this. And I would like to take it a step further. My conversation with her strengthened my conviction that the people of this country are desperately in need of universal healthcare. We owe it to our military folks, without a doubt. I think we also owe it to our teachers, and grocers, and mailmen, and salespeople, and janitors, and everybody else who contributes their efforts and tax dollars in this country. I think that healthcare is a right, much like education, that needs to be accessible to all. I have lived in countries that provide universal healthcare, and interestingly, I paid very similar rates in taxes to those I pay here. It can be done. We need to do it. And Ronnie, I would happily replace my "thank you" to you with a portion of my taxes to make sure that you (and all Americans, both military and not) live out your life with the dignity and peace of mind of available healthcare.
