Ben Carson is one of the leading candidates for the Republican Party nomination for President. He does not believe that a Muslim can be President of the United States. He thinks the Holocaust would have been avoided if German Jews carried guns, but does not realize that most of the Jews murdered by the Nazis lived in Poland and Russia. He believes there is an inalienable Constitutional right to own a gun. In a Facebook interview Carson declared "I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away." Apparently he is not that familiar with the United States Constitution, but why should bigotry and ignorance disqualify him or any other Republicans from office. Jeb Bush brushed off the recent mass murder at a community college in Oregon as "stuff happens."
But the United States Constitution does not give "crazies" or Republicans the unrestricted right to own and use guns. The Common Core standards promote close reading of text. Let's take a close look at what the Constitution says.
According to the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
At least according to the text, the original intent of the authors of the Constitution was to "insure domestic Tranquility," "provide for the common defence", "promote the general Welfare," and "secure the Blessings of Liberty." The question is whether unrestricted or minimally restricted gun ownership insures domestic tranquility, provides for national defense, promotes general welfare, or secures the blessing of liberty? Mass murders are definitely not tranquil, the mass murderers are the people we need to be defended from, their having guns does not promote anyone's welfare, and allowing them to have guns certainly did not secure the blessing of liberty to those who were murdered.
But does the government have the authority to restrict gun ownership?
Article 1 Section 8, often referred to as the elastic clause, authorizes Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Apparently the government does have the authority to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper" to ensure the mandate spelled out in the preamble which includes regulating gun ownership. This clause makes it possible for the government to regulate the Internet, credit card transactions, air travel, and cable companies, technologies that did not exist when the Constitution was written.
Defenders of the unrestricted right to bear arms like the National Rifle Association cite the Second Amendment to the Constitution as the bases for their right to own automatic guns and high-powered rifles.
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.
Gun advocates think they have a strong case here, but they are missing three important things.
1. The point about the militia. Militias are supposed to be "well regulated." Let's return to Article 1 Section 8. Among the enumerated powers of Congress, it is authorized to "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" and "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." Apparently Congress gets to decide who gets what weapons, not individuals.
2. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms" does not specifically permit every individual to own automatic guns and high-powered rifles. There is no reason Congress cannot restrict the type of arms an individual is permitted to own. Congress already does that. United States law requires a license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to refine or import nuclear material and arms importation laws limit importing a nuclear weapon. There is no legal way to acquire a nuclear weapon and their should be no legal way for a civilian outside a militia to acquire automatic guns and high-powered rifles. If they cannot control weapons, they certain can restrict bullets. I have no problem if gun nuts run around using their rifles as clubs, just as long as they can't be fired.
3. To me, what is most important is this concept of the "people," whose rights "shall not be infringed." The "people" refers to a collective right to bear arms in the national defense, not an individual right to shoot people. When the Constitution discusses individuals, it refers to "persons." Individual persons do not have the unrestricted constitutional right to own deadly weapons.
Where is Common Core and the close reading of text when it is useful?
The United States Constitution needs to be seen as a guideline for decision-making, not a restrictive 18th century template that prevents all government action forevermore. Rights are often in conflict and they are not absolute. Terrorist threats are not protected speech. They are illegal. It is also illegal for civilians to bring firearms, ammunition, or clips and magazines on an airplane, whatever the 2nd amendment says or means.
My unrestricted right to do anything I want can interfere with the rights of other individuals or society as a whole to live in tranquility. That is why the Constitution mandates action to promote the general welfare and permits restricting the right of "crazies" and Republicans to bear arms.