The National Rifle Association (NRA) holds to the view that the Second Amendment gives its members, and all citizens, the right to acquire as many kinds of guns and rifles as they see fit. Furthermore, they believe that this right is absolute and impervious to restrictions or modifications of any kind whatsoever.
Three general purposes are recognized for would-be gun owners: hunting, sport, and personal security. A fourth purpose belongs to that of the discerning collector; this is also recognized as a legitimate pursuit but since collectors are not generally intent on actively using pistols or rifles, we consider them “a class apart”.
These types of activities are considered legitimate pursuits, as distinct from criminal enterprise. The NRA stands adamantly opposed to any legislation that would prohibit or curtail the exercise of such rights by Americans to engage in target shooting, hunting for food, etc. The Founding Fathers secured this basic right to own and “bear arms” in the Bill of Rights.
GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE
As well, there is another underlying matter not always put into words but it, too, is a legacy of the American Revolution: namely, that the people shall not be disarmed by any government, especially one moving toward autocracy.
The salient context grew out of the colonists’ conflict with the English crown when King George III tried to forbid his “loyal subjects” from taking up arms as the revolutionary mood gained ground. (For the historical-minded reader, you might remember how the battles of Lexington and Concord started with an attempt by British soldiers to seize arms and gunpowder being collected by the Patriots.)
Hence, the authors of the Constitution concluded that if ever the people should find themselves living under the yoke of a tyrannical government, the citizens should have the right to use force to oppose such tyranny. This is not quite the same mindset as extremist self-armed para-military groups that harbor paranoid delusions about the nature and purpose of government.
The militia, or bands of men organized within the individual colonies (before being incorporated into the Continental Army) played an indispensable role in the Revolution itself. Thus, ordinary men—with musket in hand–helped defeat the Redcoats. They were willing to risk their own lives for a cause larger than themselves, independence and freedom.
However, despite these facts, the conclusion does not follow that the NRA, and only the NRA, is always right when it comes to gun safety and sensible laws aimed at improving public safety. To the contrary, the NRA does not hold a monopoly on historical truth nor is it the only group interested in protecting the rights of citizens. The world of today is vastly different than the world of 1776; the musket has given way to weapons of terrifying destructive power.
HOT BUTTON ISSUE
One of the most controversial aspects of the debate concerns military-type weapons. The latest conflict has arisen over the question of assault-type weapons soldiers might use under actual battle conditions, powerful weapons which the NRA defends as falling under the protection of the Second Amendment.
There is no rush, however, to change the organization’s name to the National Assault Rifle Association although in theory one name is as good as another. No doubt it sounds harsher to the ear somehow–perhaps due to the negative connotations associated with mass shootings in schools committed by individuals firing such weapons.
In 2018, the United States is averaging about one school shooting per week so far, with the year half-gone. In the last few years, there have been 288 mass shootings in America; over the same period, Mexico—which comes in second—has had eight such shootings. The violence in America has grown to epidemic proportions and takes far more lives than most disease do.
Although the right to own guns is seen as virtually absolute by the NRA, it is apparently acceptable to them that prisoners behind bars not be allowed to acquire guns during their prison stay. At least there have been no recent stories of the NRA leaders demanding that prisoners should have the right to “bear arms” while in prison.
This observation is not meant to be facetious but brings us to the next point: proposed gun control legislation, such as universal background checks, is aimed at reducing the amount of violence in America; it is not aimed at taking away a right that belongs to law-abiding citizens.
The NRA likes to pull a sleight-of-hand trick here, mistaking (or re-labeling) the public’s concern for safety as a devious attempt to disarm every American. NRA leaders (and some members) behave as though they’re suffering from a persecution complex; they think every local, state, and Congressional bill dealing with gun control is designed with only them in mind.
Their claim is there is a huge conspiracy intended to strip them of their God-given rights to own hand-guns, rifles, and assault weapons! Opposition to assault weapons does not mean opposition to hand-guns and rifles. Such a position is patently false but it does seem to garner a certain amount of support: if you can’t own an assault rifle, tyranny is on its way.
Such screaming aloud of half-truths depends on emotional over-drive rather than reason. Since the use of facts tends to limit their persuasive efforts, the NRA has found that hysterically shouting “our rights are being taken away!” is a better choice. It acts like a fear-inducing steroid among the uninformed and undecided, to say nothing of the already committed True Believers.
It is akin to telling drivers they must register their cars with the Department of Motor Vehicles and claiming that such registration is intended to deprive them of their right to own and drive their cars. Nothing could be further from the truth!
PERSECUTION COMPLEX
Curiously enough, we often see signs of this “persecution complex” in other areas as well. If the government decides schools are not a proper place for prayer under the doctrine of separation of church and state, the religious fundamentalists convince themselves they are under attack and that the basic right of freedom of religion is soon to be lost entirely!
If the Supreme Court allows a community to take preventive action against a store-owner peddling pornography, the store owner yells (louder than anyone else) that his right of freedom of speech—and the right to earn a quick buck–is being bullied and curtailed. The peddlers of smut suddenly represent themselves as the most sincere admirers of the First Amendment this country has ever produced–and not a word of greedy self-interest is ever breathed aloud.
In much the same way, the same is true of gun manufacturers who forget to mention that Big Money is made by the selling of guns. Fewer restrictions equal higher sales of guns and ammunition, which in turn means larger profits. Never mind that it also means more tragedy and death for the next round of victims of gun violence.
If the courts relax the requirements police must follow before making a search of the person or property of a criminal suspect, one can rest assured that individuals will come forward to claim that the Fourth Amendment has been gutted in its entirety!
Little is said of all the rights that belong to Americans: the right of freedom of choice in the matter of one’s religion, including the right to worship in any church one pleases. In this larger context, the argument that “freedom of religion” is not being safeguarded simply falls far short of the intended mark.
Likewise with freedom of speech, a right practiced daily by millions of Americans all across the length and breadth of America. The occasional restraint upon the merchandiser of pornography is hardly a full-scale attack upon this basic freedom–but to hear the pornographer tell it, the First Amendment has lost to its enemies!
And what of the Fourth Amendment? Has giving law enforcement agencies a greater degree of leeway in searching suspects really vitiated entirely the effectiveness of the Amendment? No; the requirement for police to secure warrants before conducting searches remains in force, and illegally obtained evidence is treated as such by the courts.
Yet, in practical matters of pursuit and arrest–where probable crimes have been committed and delay in acquiring a warrant would risk the escape of a suspect or the destruction of incriminating evidence–the courts have agreed that some flexibility in the application of rules concerning search warrants will enhance effective law enforcement, not hinder it.
The separation of church and state is an important principle that contributes to the freedom of many diverse groups in America; it has never been an anti-religious doctrine and never will be.
The occasional restrictions upon freedom of speech (against slander, libel, and incitement) do not constitute an encroachment aimed at undermining this fundamental right; they are but a few of the legal elaborations deemed necessary to protect the safety and moral standards of the larger community.
The liberalization of standards for search warrants in certain specific situations is not aimed at taking away the right of privacy but one designed to help police effectively pursue and arrest those persons involved in criminal activity.
Other examples could be cited, of course–of Constitutional rights guaranteed to all Americans that nevertheless have seen a few restrictions placed upon them over the years.
CHANGING TIMES
American society does not stand still; times change and so do interpretations of the law. The Constitution is called a living document for a very good reason–that while its broad principles are engraved with a decisive commitment to democratic government, specific statutes can and should be modified from time to time, depending on the needs of society and its citizens.
Thus, when we return to the question of gun control, it is safe to say the NRA seems to reflect this “persecution complex”. They see calls for better standards for registration of firearms as a flimsy precursor to a government intending to disarm every American.
The NRA’s preferred style of noise-making—and attempts to muddy the waters–seems to fit the Shakespearean line “Methinks the lady doth protest too much”.
Such intransigence gives rise to the criticism that NRA protest is being used to cover up economic motives; its constant refusal compromise and deal honestly with the epidemic of gun violence today seems to reflect a degree of “don’t rock the boat” monetary selfishness. The selling of guns is big business and highly profitable; of that there can be little doubt.
HISTORY VERSUS THE PRESENT
The NRA spokesmen insist, for instance, assault rifles are covered by the Second Amendment when such weapons were not yet even invented at the time the Constitution was adopted! To argue the drafters of the Constitution intended to include a weapon they never saw (or could have imagined) is ludicrous.
Washington’s men had barrel-loading muskets where a soldier being able to fire twice in one minute was considered dependable and efficient. There was no rifling inside of the barrel as of yet so the trajectory of most shots was highly unpredictable and frequently missed (the rifle was just being introduced as the Revolution ended.)
No writing in the Constitution is quite as absolute as the NRA makes it out to be–simply because the Constitution itself can be amended at any time if Congress and the people wish. True, we have no reason to suspect that its basic framework will require modification but the people’s right to change specific sections does exist for a reason.
The NRA, on the other hand, chooses to ignore the growing public demand to take action to end gun violence, including sensible gun control laws. The NRA instead chooses to behave as though the Second Amendment were part of Holy Scripture. Actually, it is not part of the Bible and–lest they forget—that book says “Thou shalt not kill.”
(One supposes gun-control advocates could rightly claim they are closer in fidelity to the fifth commandment than the NRA but as for that view, we should let all such matters be decided by trained scholars well-versed in such matters of theology and law.)
More to the point is the NRA’s defense of the Second Amendment as embodying an absolute right that does not allow of any interpretation other than its own. We might well ask, is this Amendment more important than all of the other rights of citizens listed in the Constitution?
We might further ask, how and when did a single amendment become more significant than the principles of the document within which it resides?
How does it surpass Jefferson’s eloquence when he wrote of “certain unalienable Rights” including “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”?
FUZZY THINKING
The NRA seems to think its members somehow represent the perfect well-armed human being, believing no doubt that people have always had guns—or weapons, at any rate.
Certainly, if we delve deep into the annals of ancient European history we find Norse legends. We can even go back in time to the days of bows and arrows and hunters stalking large mastodons with spear in hand.
Throughout the world, societies have gone through this stage of social development where “mighty hunters” risked life and limb to track down and kill dangerous beasts in order to feed their hungry families.
The Australian aborigine with his boomerang is a hunter; an Amazon tribal member with blow-gun and poisoned dart is a hunter; the Native American crouching low to the ground, bow and arrow at the ready, belongs to this fraternity of hunters as well. Greek myths are resplendent with images of the chase; no less valiant are the deeds of heroism performed by Rama in tales from India.
Yet come up the centuries and we must now deal with the reality of America at the start of the twenty-first century and no other place or time. The study of history may help us understand how our rights came into being but it does not provide answers for how to solve the current crises that are threatening to overwhelm our modern cities with tragedy and senseless murders.
Only thinking men and women living in today’s world can do as much. If the NRA cannot find new solutions, then the American people must.
