A Well Regulated Militia

I’m not interested in “gun control”, as in getting rid of some or all guns. Given the genesis of our country, and our centuries long relationship with universal personal gun ownership, that’s not going to happen. Rather, I’m interested in changing our culture. We are all responsible for the society we live in, one in which it is easier to get a gun than to get a license to drive a car. In the words of New Yorker writer Adam Gopnick:

“The collective responsibility that all Americans share is the responsibility of allowing too many people to have too many guns; guns … can be bought in this country by almost anyone who wants one. We have been running an experiment of a kind that no sane ethicist would allow: what happens when, in a country large enough to contain every imaginable kind of crazy, from the inward-turning, maniac sort to the outward-turning, politicized kind, you make sure that almost anyone can readily buy any kind of gun? And now we know the answer: you get more gun massacres than there are days in the year.”

So what should we do about this on-going threat to our individual and collective safety? We already have the answer in the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution: “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.” At the moment, we are only following the second half of that sentence. We need to pay more attention to the first half. Forget for a moment all the arguments about what a militia might mean, or if we even need one. Take it at face value.

How to do that? There is currently an example of a successful, rich, and safe country which pretty much follows that prescription: Switzerland. At age 20, most men are “inducted” into the national army, and provided with a military grade firearm. Like the members of our National Guards, they have annual exercises and education in defense, including the use of firearms. For more on how this actually works, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland.

Before we can get to defining what a “well regulated militia” might mean in the US, first we need to identify some common ground. Once we collectively accept that (a) we all want to be safe, (b) regulation is something we all submit to in many areas of our lives in order to enhance safety, and (c) the 2nd amendment allows for the regulation as well as the possession of “arms”, then we might start getting somewhere in managing the role guns play in making it easy for disaffected people of all stripes (lonely young men, gangbangers, disgruntled postal workers, lone wolf terrorists) to get ahold of guns ‘n ammo and kill other folks who aren’t so inclined.

Here’s what I propose as a start to creating a safer culture: You can have all the guns you want, as long as you participate in an ongoing process to ensure you are knowledgeable, capable, and not a risk to yourself or others. Just as we initially must apply and regularly reapply for a driver’s license, we should also be required to apply for a non-transferable gun license, and reapply on a regular basis. The gun license should be restricted to one person; you can not sell or give the gun to any one else unless they go thru the same process. For each and every gun you own. People don’t give their driver’s licenses to underage kids or chronic drunks; people should’t be allowed to give or re-sell guns to just anyone.

Now, this is not going to eliminate all gun mediated killing, maybe not even most of it. Remember, around 40,000 people die every year at the hands of licensed people driving motor vehicles. But, a licensing system can be a start, part of an entire cultural shift, which includes things analogous to seat belts, air bags, and taboos against driving drunk. After we start regulating guns in a sane and safe manner, than we can have a conversation about WHAT “arms” we should allow. Nuclear weapons? Tanks? RPGs? High capacity, rapid firing rifles? Large magazines? Handguns? Shotguns?.

Regulation does NOT mean “confiscation” or “restriction”. Possession of a gun should mean a willingness to submit to the a certain level of scrutiny. Don’t say it’s not possible, or not allowed by the second amendment (“Well regulated militia”). It’s just as possible to regulate gun ownership as it is to regulate driving, passports, or letting in immigrants legally (which we do by the 100s of thousands each year). Just as I want to be assured that the people driving on the roads with me, or coming into the country aren’t likely to harm me, I’d like to be assured that people who possess guns aren’t likely to be harm me. It would be safer than what we deal with now, which is psychotic.