Our nation is divided and many of us are pained by the seemingly irreconcilable differences between two groups of our fellow citizens.
Gun control advocates, on the one hand, shocked by the devastation a disturbed person can cause with the aid of a few pounds of carefully machined steel and explosive powder, want to restrict the availability of these implements. They point out that some guns have no purpose other than to kill and maim human beings, unless you count the thrill of pulling a trigger and watching a target explode as a legitimate purpose. And even if it is legitimate, any action that saves a life at so little cost must be worthwhile.
On the other side, gun rights activists fear that they will have something precious, even vital, taken away from them for no good reason—since criminals will always find ways around gun laws. They themselves, of course, have been responsible gun-owners all their lives. And, if government can take away their guns, which are doing no harm, what’s to stop government from taking anything else—their cars, their checking accounts, their children, even their flat-screen TVs. The Second Amendment is as clear as clear can be: “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.” That is the bulwark against tyranny.
We have passionate intensity and conviction on both sides. We have ideals and deeply held beliefs that drive people in opposite directions. You may see no space for compromise.
However, as always, the wisdom of the Founding Fathers hovers over us to show the way. We at Stoneslide have followed their counsel and found an originalist solution to this dilemma. In fact, this solution is so originalist that, after you read it, you’ll feel like you just watched Antonin Scalia wearing a tri-cornered hat trying to mount a horse.
We have to stop thinking about taking guns away. The Founding Fathers wanted the people armed. There is no question on this point. Take Patrick Henry: “The great object is, that every man be armed.” He said this in a debate at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, and the quote has become very popular with gun rights advocates. But if you read on in the record of Henry’s speech, you will find that he made this clarion statement for gun ownership in the midst of an argument for the vital importance of militias. Here he is two sentences later: “But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case.” See, there it is. The founders wanted people armed and they wanted people in militias.
So that is our solution: Pass a federal law requiring that every gun-owner also belong to a militia troop.
While foreign to us, the link between firearm ownership and militia service was obvious to the Founders. Not only is it right there in the text of the Second Amendment (look up five paragraphs, if you’ve forgotten), but a 1792 law—passed by a Congress that included Madison, Monroe, etc., and signed by Washington himself—required every able-bodied white male to be a part of a militia and to own an appropriate firearm. Transport that idea to today, strip out the sexism and racism that we are all glad to be rid of, and you get the requirement that every adult own a firearm and join a militia. If you ask yourself, What would the founders do today? The answer is clear: They’d require every person to be in a militia and own a firearm. How much more lenient are we to only require those who choose to own firearms to be in the militia? (Others who enjoy marching and shiny brass buttons are more than welcome to join, of course. They can borrow guns from their better endowed neighbors, no doubt.)
Well, now we’ve got gun owners in the militia, so what do we do with them? We train them in gun safety, first of all. That should save a few lives. We register their guns, to be sure these implements of freedom are well regulated and will be available when needed—and also to be sure they don’t end up in the wrong hands. We march them, as militias must be marched, over long distances and highly varied terrain, which will have health benefits and probably increase the effectiveness of the preventive health and cost-saving measures in Obamacare. We apply psychological tests. Based on the results, we monitor certain militiamembers for signs of building rage or despair. But we also build a sense of community and mutual dependence within the militia that may help some of those who would otherwise turn to rogue violence, be it against self or others.
Is this overreach? Are we now, in the name of protecting one liberty, infringing other liberties? Well, the Constitution is very clear on this point. Article I, Section 8: the Congress has the power “[t]o provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia….” And, remember, the same founders who wrote that clause believed that EVERYONE should be in the militia. We are not limiting gun ownership in any way, merely providing regulation for our militia. And, given the meanings we could apply to the word “discipline,” we believe we are again being remarkably lenient. Our gun-owning militiamembers hotfooting it over the countryside are being organized, armed, and disciplined, just as the framers intended.
We believe this approach honors the original intentions of the authors of the Second Amendment (see, Antonin Scalia and the horse… we told you) while accomplishing most of the aims of those who argue for gun control. Gun owners keep their guns. Those guns are managed more carefully. The wrong people are prevented from owning guns. Everyone wins. How could this not pass?
