Gun control has its limits, and too often restrictions on firearms liberties disproportionately impact those who a are not prone to the sort of problems that are claimed as the motive for gun control. So much so that the net effect is often opposite of what proponents claim to want to accomplish. That argument has been made ad nauseum, and I’m often reminded of the quote “you cannot reason a person out of an idea that they didn’t reason themselves into.” So I’ll leave that particular soap box alone for the moment.
What is worth focusing on is how this or any other nation could come together (and why no current government in power is too keen on the idea). In the US we have what is often misnomered as a democracy. We do not have a democracy. Our nation was founded as constitutional republic, and has in many ways drifted in the directions of a constitutional democracy and a constitutional oligarchy. As it stands it is an awkward blend, but the common thread is that it is constitutional. There are many fine mini courses on the US Constitution that make up for the almost universal lack of constitutional instruction in our schools today, so I’d invite you to look into one or more of them if your understanding of the constitution has been limited to the bumper sticker phrases common in various media circuses.
The US has a constitution. That constitution could accurately be described as a document of negative liberties. It’s central focus is to constrain government by explicitly enumerating things the government can do, and explicitly stating that no authority but that which was enumerated could be claimed by the government. It should be noted that the bill of rights was considered redundant by many at the time they were being deliberated since the constitution granted none of the authorities denied to it by the bill of rights. But the bill of rights was put in place to make extra explicit certain rights considered central to liberty.
Specific to this discussion is the second amendment which reads:
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.
A few things are worth pointing out. First is that even in the absence of the second amendment, nowhere in the constitution was congress granted the authority to regulate arms. This would leave states some latitude in their ability to pass gun related laws, but another interesting thing about the second amendment is there is nothing in the second amendment suggesting that it would only apply to congress.
This is about the point where certain people who think quite highly of themselves go to hyperbole and ask if the people have the right to keep and bear nuclear arms. Putting aside just how ridiculous this suggestion is given the current mound of existing unconstitutional infringements, and the glaring logical fallacy of suggesting that since individuals having nuclear arms doesn’t make a whole lot of sense we should broadly disarm the population, there is this thing called an amendment process. Should this nation ever get back to the point where an oath to the constitution means more than party loyalty, I doubt the idea of individuals owning nuclear arms will ever receive any merit. To put it bluntly, anybody that can’t find even one state that wouldn’t ratify an amendment stating that “congress shall have the exclusive authority to regulate the use and possession of nuclear materials” needs to put up or shut up.
While the plain reading of the words in the constitution are simple enough for even an elementary grade reading level to interpret correctly, at a minimum it should be noted that the US Supreme Court has held that arms used by infantry are covered under the second amendment, and that the second amendment is an individual right.
So then how can this admittedly grand power be maintained such that it does not pose a threat to society? Well to be blunt, it can be controlled the exact same way the government controls anything it actually wants to be uniformly controlled. 99% of it would be voluntary compliance. The 1% would be low input, high yield controls that do not require micromanagement to be effective.
First is the reality that there are plenty of people in any society that have no business with arms. There could and should be plenty of debate regarding who falls into this category and what manner of due process is required to relieve an individual of their rights. But it is pretty solidly recognized that many forms of rights can be taken based on an individuals actions.
Second is the reality that no law or legal structure can eliminate evil, and in this case eliminating weapons completely can’t be done, nor could eliminating violence. As such, any legal constraint would not only have to be within the constitutional authority of a government (IE legal constraints have to be legal to be constraining), it would have to seek the greatest overall good.
In the end, the simplest means of controlling the flow of arms among those who through due process have been barred from possessing them is to simply list this restriction on the government issued ID’s of all those prohibited from possession. Then require that all arms transactions involve the seller viewing the ID of the buyer to verify it does not prohibit the transaction. Government officers with prohibiting ID’s attempting to buy from unscrupulous sellers would require no more than the rarity of boogie men to result in very high levels of compliance. This would eliminate the enormous (and growing) burdens on both the government to be a nanny, and the people to put up with the intrusions of said nanny.
But don’t hold your breath for anything like this. This solution does not expand the scope or power of government, it does not create more government jobs, it does not reduce the perceived need to levy more taxes, and it does not sound sexy to those who care about little else other than reelection. Its common sense is repulsive to those who seek control by marketing emotive knee jerk reactions to tragedies, and it might put an end to the fear based fundraising scheme of a certain allegedly pro gun lobbyist organization.
But if you wish to pass this idea along, feel free to snip, shorten, reword and pass along as you please.
