As far as the right to bear arms for private citizens is concerned, the U.S. finds itself in an incredibly exclusive and delicate situation.
When it added its Second Amendment to the Constitution in 1791, it did not explicitly mention the natural law-based individual right to self-defense. Still, it was somewhat tacitly hidden behind if not buried under the collective right to bear arms for the sake of ensuring the security of a free state. In the peculiar grammar of the time, the Second Amendment says: "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."
Today, however, conditions have drastically changed. The United States is a developed and stable republic with the most powerful military force in the world. Its fifty States maintain their own National Guard as a quasi-modern type of militia. The legislation of Posse Comitatus regulates and limits the federal government's powers vis-à-vis the political state entities. It appears that the collective aspect of the Second Amendment, to secure a free state, is no longer critically relevant under the current political circumstances.
In our day and age, deterring a "tyrannical" government or repelling invasion does not appear to be serious challenges anymore. Not to mention that government nowadays avails over weaponry that cannot possibly be matched with any form of private gun ownership, whether or not the latter includes assault-type or any other military-type of rifles.
The apparent emphasis of the Second Amendment on the collective right to arm citizens for the sake of building a well-regulated militia resulted from the specific historical circumstances under which the founders established the new republic. In other words, and as far as private citizens' gun ownership was concerned, the timeless and enduring natural right to individual self-defense was combined with, if not overridden and superseded by the temporal necessity to incorporate and emphasize a militia clause. Given the empirical circumstances, the founding fathers considered the right to possess arms for the collective reason of securing liberty within a fledgling republic more critical than the explicit authorization for individual self-preservation. It most likely happened because the innate right to self-defense had been a perennial element of the Anglo-Saxon Common Law tradition for centuries and was considered a granted right.
Consequently, and to overcome the confusion dominating the current gun debate in politics and society, an adaptation or revision of the Second Amendment stressing the individual self-defense component of the law would appear conducive. Such clarification also explains why private citizens do not need to own arms beyond handguns and weapons for immediate protection of one's safety and hunting purposes. Dealing with the already purchased and privately owned assault weapons may require different measures such as a voluntary buyback or even confiscation of firearms in limited and justified circumstances of immediate endangerment. Had law enforcement followed through on the latter aspect, the recent Florida shooting incident with 17 people killed would not have happened. However, proper socialization and education should provide the primary solutions to this challenge, and arguments to this effect follow at this essay's end.
As I explained in the wake of the San Bernadino massacre in my 2015 essay on Guns in Private Hands (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2015/12/guns-in-private-hands-what-to-do-with.html): "Legitimate and well-informed governments are aware that the right to self-defense and gun ownership within prescribed confines, fosters and consolidates the monopoly of force [of the State]. Both the monopoly of arms and private gun ownership provides a synthesis for most effective internal safety and security of a nation."
I also made clear that due to the country's vastness and the remoteness of specific areas and settlements, the United States had to authorize private citizens to own firearms generously from the inception of its nationhood.
Against the backdrop of an adequate political philosophy for private gun ownership, as briefly outlined here and in the blog essay mentioned above, the current debate's ideological prejudices and misconceptions become evident.
Constitutions and constitutional amendments can be modified and adjusted so that lawmakers maintain the founders' spirit and the underlying ideas and principles under the ever-changing conditions of earthly existence. Like any other law, the Second Amendment can either be amended or further specified by meaningful legislation. Such legal specifications should underscore the right to self-defense and relate the extent to which private citizens may own certain types of guns. Guiding principles should be the need to defend one's own home, and safety and the legitimate hunting of wildlife is concerned.
As shown, to argue for the possession of military-style assault weapons by reference to the Second Amendment's militia clause can no longer be justified. However, since there is no conscription for military service in the U.S., and soldierly service in federal and national guard forces is voluntary, citizens interested in military assault weapons should be introduced to them in the regulated and safe environment of shooting clubs. This support could well be done in close civil-military cooperation and help foster the bond between military and civilian communities, which is crucial in open societies.
On the other hand, to argue for the disarmament of private citizens or even the Second Amendment's termination in light of recent school shooting incidences demonstrates nothing but ill-education and misjudgment regarding the importance of private gun ownership in a developed society. Those stances are neither philosophically nor politically tenable. And history confirms that the more totalitarian a nation becomes, the more the rights to self-defense and to bear arms become restricted.
A gun itself – like a knife or a truck or a rock – is an inanimate object that carries no moral value whatsoever in and of itself. Only the human being using it gives it meaning and bestows ethical significance upon it. While proper legislation concerning gun ownership serves as a deterrent and certainly helps to contain potential abuse and to prevent crime, it is ultimately the human volition that decides how guns – or knives or trucks or rocks, for that matter – are used.
In the end, it is the proper socialization of young people and the continued efforts to provide adequate education and character building that instill proper regard for human life. Responsible social formation helps to overcome self-indulgence and apathetic egotism and to withstand the desensitization of the ease of killing shown in video games and Hollywood movies.
A comprehensive and unbiased grasp of private gun ownership and the true meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment should be part of the mindset of an informed citizenry.
