Cranky’s
taking a break
From
verse for a day
But
have no sorrow
Verse
will return
Likely
tomorrow
Two
barriers prevent effective, meaningful, and pervasive regulation of guns in the
United States. The first is a deeply held political belief that guns equal
freedom. This ideological stance was not particularly entrenched for much of
the nation’s history. Its current widespread viability can be attributed to the National
Rifle Association’s efforts and hardline propaganda dating back to the 1970s.
The second barrier to effective gun
regulation is the oddly worded Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and
its judicial interpretations.
This summary is focused primarily on the second
barrier, the Constitution’s Second Amendment. The first barrier, the political
belief that guns equal freedom, would require a thorough examination of the
national psyche and perhaps multiple sessions with a national psychiatrist.
Removing the Second Amendment as a
major barrier to effective gun regulation could take one of three approaches.
First, the Constitution itself could
be amended by eliminating the Second Amendment or by clearing up its weird
wording (principally the militia reference) and explicitly narrowing its scope. This would be the most direct
approach but also the most formidable. Amending the Constitution on a
contentious issue is an uphill, long-term endeavor.
Second, the currently popular and
close-to-dominant originalist avenue to constitutional interpretation could be
curtailed. In general, originalism mandates interpreting the words of the
Constitution with their meanings at the time of their adoption. At the extreme,
this can lead to a brain-dead document that is a barrier to meaningful action
on modern problems.
Putting originalism back in its cage
would also be a long-term formidable endeavor, but perhaps a bit more practical
than the amending route. Outside of changing the minds of current Supreme Court
Justices, the approach would require waiting on the departure of current
originalists and appointing more realistic Justices in their place. Of course,
this also requires like-minded Presidents and Congresses.
The third approach to lessening the
current rigidity of the Second Amendment is to take the opposite view of
originalism and go all in on the concept. Constitutional provisions can only
mean what the words meant when they were adopted? Then “arms” in the Second
Amendment can only refer to ye ol’ flintlock and similar artifacts. “Arms” do
not include AR-15s and other modern weapons, which thus are not covered by the
Second Amendment.
Of the three approaches to reducing
the Second Amendment barrier to effective gun regulation, the second seems the
most realistic. But re-educating current Justices on the absurdity of strict
originalism and waiting on the appointment of less narrow-minded new Justices
will take some time.
Meanwhile, work could proceed on the first
barrier to effective gun regulation--the guns equal freedom equation—and the
national mental therapy needed to put this historical aberration in its place.
