What does the Second Amendment say?!
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?
or
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to form a well regulated militia shall not be infringed?
The Bill of Rights was added conditionally as an outcome of state ratifying conventions, to prohibit the government from infringing the rights of the people. If not for the first ten amendments the Constitution would not have been adopted by the states. Both the 9th and 10th amendments specify that it is solely the business of the people, not the federal government, within or without the jurisdiction of the states to decide what does or does not constitute a well-regulated militia and whether any militia exists at all. These facts render the argument that the 2nd Amendment is poorly worded, has a misplaced comma, and therefore gives the government sweeping powers to infringe, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, entirely spurious.
I do not worship “The Constitution”. I am neither for nor against “The Constitution”. It is a piece of paper. It has plenty of flaws. But I assume we all agree people are not angels, are capable of doing bad things, and it is a good thing to prohibit people form doing them or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. And, if you will, let’s also assume for just a moment we all agree government is necessary to accomplish this broad goal. A government is made up of…people. It is composed of the same people capable of doing the same bad things as those not in government like shooting innocent people, only with vast resources with which to do them and backed by the state monopoly on legal violence. Anyone with a Schoolhouse Rock education can list elements of a government designed to limit its ability to abuse its citizens. One of them is the fact that a constitution limiting the power of politicians is written down in a cogent manner available for anyone to read and use in defense of their own rights. Here I am not referring to any particular constitution or what it might say. Only that a constitution is written and its purpose is to prevent top office holders from writing their own job descriptions. It is handed to them and their political opponents are able to hold them to it.
Politically I am not a progressive but I see a progressive as one who believes government should be a positive force in the lives of people and facilitating positive changes in society is a primary government responsibility. Progressives also believe this responsibility can only be met by a government responsive to the people within a democratic framework. In other words, an autocratic or totalitarian government does not fit the bill. So, since a government composed of human beings will not limit its own power once attained, is it reasonable to delegate such power without constitution and expect benevolence and responsiveness? Of course not. Let’s assume we all agree that government can and should adhere to this definition of progressivism and we all agree government must limit access to guns to promote public safety. Let’s say this goal is pursued in Washington, in the spirit of a “living constitution” whereby current policy makers emboldened by current opinion leaders decide the 2nd amendment is poorly worded, not relevant to modern conditions and therefore strict gun control laws are justified. (Folks, I just described a government without constitution). Such a government would also possess enormous numbers of guns itself and use them frequently (and frequently racially motivated?) against its own people. Sound familiar? Such a government would be all too happy to ban guns, but why? For your benefit? For your safety? I have a bridge for sale. Anyone in favor of a government as public benefactor instead of oppressor has just suffered a huge defeat.
If you are a proponent of the argument that the 2nd Amendment only protects the right of the people to form a well-regulated militia, fine. Amend the Constitution to say so. Not to make it more difficult to pass gun control but to make it more difficult for a government which has already violated the 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments on a massive scale, with impunity (in an environment where many are calling for violation of the 1st Amendment by way of hate speech legislation) to rack up even greater crimes against the American people.
One more thing. Let’s not automatically call the 2017 Las Vegas shooting the “worst mass shooting in U.S. history”
Wounded Knee, 1890 – 150 killed
Waco Massacre, 1993 – 76 killed
Both perpetrated by the government of the United States of America.