Gun Right Gone Wrong

Surviving the 21st Century in spite of the 2nd Amendment

Back in 1791, there was nothing inherently wrong with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Except for its peculiar grammar.

The legislation has proven itself useful many times over, if only for white Americans. It helped to defeat the British, put down slave rebellions, and overcome Native American reluctance to part with their land. Arguably, the country consolidated into its present state BECAUSE OF the 2^nd Amendment.

Today, with gun violence reaching epidemic proportions, Americans are trying to survive IN SPITE OF the 2^nd Amendment.

In 1991, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren E. Burger stated that the 2^nd Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud,' on the American public.”

Having outlived its intended purpose long ago, the amendment appears now to exist solely for the purpose of commerce. It has been appropriated by the gun manufacturers, in tandem with the NRA, for profit. And only because of that unfortunate 18^th Century punctuation.

The odd placement of the commas is what makes the 2^nd Amendment wide-open to interpretation. The two essential options are:

Collective – each state has the right to arm its militia

Individual – personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms

But let’s not get bogged down by these mutually exclusive propositions. If the Supreme Court can’t make up its mind, who am I to argue? The fact remains, the Constitution grants Americans the right to own guns. We have to deal with that. At least until we wise up as a nation and repeal this obsolete legislation.

But, for the time being, I propose a solution to accommodate both sides of the debate.

We tend to forget the “well regulated Militia” part of the amendment. On May 8, 1792, Congress passed the Militia Act. Civilian gun ownership is historically and legally married to the concept of militias. Collectively or individually. Most importantly, the Militia Act is extremely precise in its definition of which firearms should be allowed: a good musket or firelock.

Therefore, I propose a compromise for 2024.

If you want a gun, it has to be a muzzle-loading, flint-striking weapon of 18^th Century design, or earlier. Any type of firearm designed after 1792 should be unavailable to civilians.

Whoever currently owns any firearm other than a musket or a firelock pistol, is in defiance of the Militia Act. Simple as that. If you depend on the Constitution to protect your gun ownership rights, you must also respect the provision: only firearms dating back to 1792 or earlier are allowed. Everything else is unpatriotic.

Don’t fret. Flintlock single-shot weapons, with experience, can be reloaded three to four times a minute. If you miss on the first try, that racoon or squirrel will have plenty of time to come back. If you fire at a human being, chances are you will be overpowered by somebody after your first shot. That’s a good thing. It takes care of mass shootings. And if children find their parents’ flintlock weapon in the closet, they won’t even know how to use it. It’s a win-win proposition. You keep your Constitutional right while reducing the damage.

Since 2022, an overwhelming majority of the States allow the friendly practice of “open carry.” In most places in America, any resident with a gun permit can openly carry a firearm on their body. Not concealed, but plainly in sight. In a holster. With a sling.

OK. As insane as this sounds, I have to accept it for now. But to respect the Constitution, you can only put a flintlock pistol in your holster. Or you can sling a musket around your shoulder. I don’t want to see any revolvers or semiautomatic pistols by your side. I don’t want to bump into the stock of your submachine gun at a grocery store. Those types of weapons are unconstitutional. Un-American.

Can we at least agree on that? Can we? Please.