The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposes most efforts to regulate firearm possession with the slippery slope argument: Give an inch, and they will take it all. Step on the slippery slope, and sliding to the bottom is inevitable. The problem with this argument is that we are already clambering in the talus. We are at the bottom, looking up.
The well-regulated militia that the 2nd Amendment is designed to protect has always been a military organization. Many people believe, me included, that the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect the citizenry from the government if the government ever got out of control, and tyrannical, or to defend locally against invasion. In the 1980 film, “Red Dawn,” Soviet troops are stymied by Colorado citizens, thanks to gun ownership and pluck.
The authors of the Bill of Rights saw weaponry that anybody could own. Edged weapons were universal; black powder was cheap. Rifles were rare, even for armies. Cannon were often privately owned. And that was it. Anything that an army could arm itself with, the Joneses could own.
As military technology advanced, military weaponry quickly became far too expensive for private citizens. Try to find a good battle tank convention–the kind where you buy things. “This T-34 is hardly used, and has the extended barrel.” By World War II, it was completely hopeless. B-29s. Howitzers. Spitfires.
The NRA was founded in 1871, and 64 years later, supported the National Firearms Act of 1934, banning, among other things, automatic weapons and requiring handgun registration. Of course, the NRA was created to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis,” not to defend its vision of the 2nd Amendment. That mission only developed long after it was too late to matter to any well-regulated militia.
I wrote earlier a hypothetical scenario in which a President of the United States ordered the suspension of an election, and I asked, “Who would stop him?” Not the militias of today. That time has passed.
Why do we need the right to own handguns, or large capacity magazines? These are tools for killing each other, not wild game or range targets. Professional soldiers are not issued handguns (except officers, to shoot disobedient soldiers that they command. This started in WW I, when soldiers refused to attack machine gun emplacements through barbed wire coils).
The most frequent argument is that handguns are needed for personal defense. This is circular reasoning. We have a right to own handguns to defend against handguns people own because we have a right to own handguns. Several policemen have told me that the best weapon for home protection is a pump shotgun. Every villain knows what “ka-chunk” means. You need not get to the point of actually pointing it at him to get the point across. This being so, why do we need handguns?
No hunter needs more than two or three rounds to bring down game. If he needs more, he has no business hunting without more training. So why do we need large capacity magazines? Well, they are useful for protecting large-scale drug transactions or for robbing banks, but nothing legal. Military rifles have one advantage over hunting rifles, and it is a big one–they are far easier to field strip. But a 20-round magazine is not needed for hunting.
I propose an outright ban on handguns and large magazines, and free training with rifles and shotguns for anyone seeking it. A buy-back program would cost less than a few cruise missiles, and might go a long way toward making schools the safe place I remember.
I also propose making crimes involving firearms capital crimes, since their use is a lethal threat.
Bill Gillmore is a bookseller transplanted to Columbus from Ann Arbor, Michigan.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 43 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.