Gun Control in America: Right vs. Privilege Debate

Origins of the American Gun Culture

In the 21st century, the legislature should make the ability to bear arms a privilege instead of a right. Whether American citizens should have the unfettered right to bear arms and own guns has been one of the most hotly debated and contentious issues ever since the Second Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights. Opponents of government restrictions on gun possession are adamant that such laws are a direct infringement on the right to bear arms guaranteed in the Constitution and are also contrary to the hunting and sporting ethos embedded in the gun culture, which is considered an essential part of American heritage. Supporters of gun control, on the other hand, firmly believe that the proliferation of guns in the country has resulted in serious problems such as gun violence and an exploding crime rate; hence the so-called "right" to bear arms has become an anachronism in the 21st century and requires corrective action by lawmakers. This essay traces the origins of the "gun culture" in America, presents the history and interpretation of the Second Amendment, reviews both sides of the argument for and against gun control, and offers arguments in support of making the bearing of arms a privilege instead of a right.

The popular "gun culture" in the United States has its roots in the hunting and sporting tradition and the militia and frontier ethos of the country's early history. The hunting and sporting tradition comes from the time when the U.S. was an agrarian society in which hunting provided an essential source of food for many early settlers and guns served as essential deterrents against animal predators. White settlers on the frontier also needed to defend themselves against hostile Native Americans, and survival depended to a large extent on their skills with firearms.

The Second Amendment: Background and Interpretation

In the early days of independence, the U.S. government did not have the resources to maintain a regular army. Service in militias was therefore mandatory for all young and middle-aged, able-bodied white Americans, who carried their own private weapons. Today's gun culture is a remnant of such frontier living and a history of citizen armies, even though the modern urban lifestyle of the overwhelming American majority is far removed from the subsistence-style frontier living and mandatory militia duty of that era. Subsequent developments in American popular culture — most notably the ubiquitous Western films that glorified the gun-toting cowboy hero — have also kept the gun culture alive. As a result, the U.S. has more guns per capita than any other developed country, with approximately 192 million privately owned firearms in total, 65 million of which are handguns ("Firearm Facts").

Most opponents of gun control laws, including the influential lobbying organization the National Rifle Association (NRA), cite the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in support of their contention that bearing arms is a fundamental right granted to American citizens. The wording of the Second Amendment does, on first reading, appear to support such a contention: "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." While presenting their case, the NRA and other opponents of gun control concentrate on the second part of the amendment — "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" — but give short shrift to the preamble's reference to "a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," words that carry equal constitutional significance.

There was a deep mistrust of standing armies among the early white settlers in America, most of whom had migrated from Britain. This suspicion had its roots in contemporary British history: for thirteen years in the middle of the 17th century, professional military forces under Oliver Cromwell ruled England, subjecting civil power to military dictation. Cromwell's rule was followed by that of King James II, a devout Catholic who filled the leading ranks of the army with Catholics and threatened to overwhelm the mainly Protestant militias. These events eventually led to his overthrow and replacement by William of Orange in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Parliament subsequently enacted the British Bill of Rights in 1689, in which, among other provisions, the nobility, wealthy landowners, and members of the Protestant militia "executing their duty to defend the country" were given the right to own and carry arms (Spitzer 20). These provisions of the British Bill of Rights were the actual forerunner of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The mistrust of standing armies continued, and even intensified, in America during the revolutionary struggle against the British. Several prominent Americans expressed their opposition to regular armies. Samuel Adams, for example, wrote in 1776 that a "standing army, however necessary it may be at sometimes, is always dangerous to the liberties of the people" (quoted in Spitzer 21). George Washington himself considered regular armies "mercenary armies" that "have at one time or another subverted the liberties of almost all the Countries they have been raised to defend." In contrast to their deep suspicion of a standing army, the American colonists held an exaggerated opinion of the bravery and effectiveness of volunteer militias. James Lovell, an American educator, statesman, and delegate to the Continental Congress, wrote in 1771 that "the true strength and safety of every commonwealth or limited monarchy, is the bravery of its freeholders, its militia" (Ibid.).

The mistrust of standing armies was further compounded by the policies of the British in colonial America. Thomas Jefferson complained in the Declaration of Independence in 1776 that "He [the King] has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures." The Virginia Declaration of Rights, also written in 1776, expressed a similar sentiment: "standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty." The War of Independence was therefore fought on the American side mainly by volunteer militias, and the citizen-soldier became a symbol of the revolutionary spirit (Ibid.).

The Articles of Confederation, drafted during the Revolution, was America's first constitution. The document reflected its authors' suspicion of standing armies and a strong central government. The Articles severely restricted the powers of Congress and granted maximum autonomy to the states. The responsibility for national defense was placed on the state militias rather than a national army, and Congress could not exercise any military powers unless 9 of the 13 states consented. Article VI specifically stated: "every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred."

Before long, however, the founding fathers recognized that the Articles were unworkable because of the extremely limited powers granted to the central government. The fighting abilities of a volunteer militia, compared to a disciplined professional army, had already been exposed during the Revolution, and even George Washington had expressed private reservations about their effectiveness despite his public pronouncements in support of the citizen militia.

By the time of the drafting of the modern U.S. Constitution at the Federal Convention of 1787, the Founding Fathers had already recognized the necessity of a national army. Considerable opposition to a strong central government still existed among the states, however, and it was not possible to eliminate several state powers, such as the maintenance of militias. As a compromise, both a standing army and the militias were recognized, with control over the militias divided between the states and the federal government. Even this arrangement was ratified by the states and anti-federalists only with great reluctance. They were concerned that the federal government's power over the state militias would eventually undermine state sovereignty. This view was most forcefully expressed during Virginia's state ratifying convention. The Anti-Federalists were particularly concerned that the federal government might refuse to fund or train the state militias. Accordingly, while ratifying the Constitution, the Virginia convention passed a resolution specifying: "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state."

The Changing Role of the Militia in U.S. History

It is therefore clear that the central issue leading to the adoption of the Second Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights — ratified in 1791 — was the concern that the powers granted in the Constitution to Congress over the militia and a national army might be used to abrogate state sovereignty, rather than a desire to recognize an individual right to bear arms. Nowhere in the background and history of the Second Amendment's introduction do we find the issue of personal use of weapons — for purposes such as hunting, sporting, recreation, or even personal protection — as contended by opponents of gun control such as the NRA. The Second Amendment's recognition of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" was intended primarily for the purpose of maintaining "a well-regulated Militia."

Having established that the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment was intended mainly for the militia, it is important to examine how the militia's role changed over time. The first federal law passed by Congress was the Uniform Militia Act of 1792. The Act defined the U.S. militia as "every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states between the ages of eighteen and forty-five" and obligated militiamen to provide their own weapons, ammunition, and equipment. This provision was necessary at the time because the federal government lacked the resources to provide arms itself — and it also explains why the Second Amendment had provided for the right of the people to bear arms. All fifteen states in the Union soon passed laws to regulate their militias in accordance with federal guidelines.

The strengths and weaknesses of the militia system were quickly revealed. Militia forces were instrumental in winning key battles against Indians in 1794, and the Whiskey Rebellion in the same year was successfully suppressed by a militia force. On the other hand, also in 1794, there was a serious confrontation between Georgia militiamen and federal troops in a dispute over the treatment of Creek and Cherokee Indians. A dispute over the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 nearly precipitated a similar encounter between federal troops and the Virginia militia (Ibid. 28). The militia system gradually degenerated as most states failed to implement the terms of the Uniform Militia Act, and it became increasingly difficult to persuade eligible men to arm themselves and attend training and drills. By the end of the eighteenth century it was clear that a universal citizen-militia system was impractical and obsolete, and the government began to rely increasingly on its professional army and an elite corps of volunteers called the select — later "organized" — militias.

The reputation of citizen militias suffered a further blow as a result of their dismal performance in the War of 1812. The Militia Act of 1903 legally separated the "organized militia" from the unorganized "reserve militia" and renamed it the National Guard. From that point onward, the reserve citizen-militia became practically extinct, although Congress still retains the legal power to call upon "all able-bodied men" between the ages of 17 and 45 for military duty. In the modern era, the regular U.S. Army and the National Guard are generally adequate for such duty. In exceptional circumstances — such as the Second World War and the Vietnam War — the military draft, rather than a militia call-up, has been used to meet the needs of military service.

It can thus be argued that the Second Amendment's provision of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" becomes operative only when the federal government uses its powers to call up the reserve militia. This has not occurred in the modern era after the Civil War and is not likely to occur in the foreseeable future.

Conclusion

As this paper has shown, there are more privately owned firearms per capita in the United States than in any other developed country. It is no surprise, therefore, that the country also leads the industrialized world in per capita homicides and gun deaths. Despite these alarming statistics, a stubborn minority in the U.S. vehemently resists stricter gun control legislation. That minority insists that the Second Amendment gives all American citizens the right to bear arms and that the Constitution forbids the government to place restrictions on that right. This position persists despite overwhelming evidence that the right to bear arms mentioned in the Second Amendment was intended primarily for a citizen militia that has become redundant over time — a view that the U.S. Supreme Court has also tended to support.