We just experienced another heartbreaking mass homicide. The killer used a military-style semi-automatic weapon with a large magazine along with a semiautomatic pistol, a shotgun, and a (possibly homemade) chemical weapon. Many years ago, I was on a high school rifle team and kept up with new rifles and ammunition. The AR-15 style ammunition used in the Colorado shootings was new in the 1960s, with a small, very high velocity bullet. Because the bullet is so fast and because of its construction, it comes apart when it hits something. Some of my teammates got small “bounties” of 25 or 50 cents from local farmers for killing groundhogs on their farms. If you shoot a groundhog with a .22 it may run back into its hole and die – no body, no bounty. I still recall their vivid descriptions of how a groundhog would “explode” when hit with one of these bullets – a bounty for every hit. Armed forces use this kind of ammunition because it is so effective for killing people. The Colorado shooter had the ammunition and a semiautomatic (fires as fast as you can pull the trigger) assault rifle with a 100 round magazine. It was legal right up to the point when he shot the first victim. The bodies were not cold before “gun rights” activists were pointing out that “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” They knew the question of gun control would come up again. Well, here it is.

We are overdue for thoughtful looks at weapons in our society and at the second amendment to the constitution. Here is the actual wording of the amendment. “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.”   Note that the amendment is about “arms” not just guns. At the time it was written, arms would have included single shot, muzzle loading firearms: pistols, muskets, cannon, blunderbusses, etc. Swords, bayonets, knives, longbows, crossbows, bombs, and some other weapons were also in existence. In the past 200 years, we have added nuclear, chemical, and biological arms, along with automatic weapons (machine guns and assault rifles). Hand-held arms include rocket launchers, flame throwers, hand grenades, surface to air missiles, and probably some things that I have not thought to include.

Few, if any among us would argue that any individual or organization other than the military should be allowed to possess some kinds of arms. And the courts have upheld laws prohibiting private ownership of some of them. That being the case, let’s get over the idea that no legislative body can restrict the private right to keep and bear arms. We’ve been doing it for a long time and we need to do it. Do you really want private citizens to own land mines, surface to air missiles or nerve gas?

Someone has to have the authority and the responsibility to draw the line somewhere and we all have to live with the consequences. That responsibility rests with the congress or state legislatures. To be effective, a law should be national. Weapons are easily transported across state lines. Clearly the congress has the right (and I would argue they also have the responsibility) to draw the lines. The difficult question for the Supreme Court is to determine how far the congress can go without violating second amendment rights. That answer is necessarily going to evolve as weapons evolve. Pepper spray did not exist in the 1700s. Now it does and it is clear that you can own it. Mustard gas did not exist in the 1700s. Now it does and I hope it is clear that it is not legal for you to own it. Many of us want this kind of law with the safety and the clarity that it brings.

The second amendment does not talk about self defense. If it did, that might make this discussion easier. The amendment is about “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…” The idea seems to have been that it might be necessary for the people to organize themselves into a militia to defend their “free state” against threats. It was a realistic concern. The British invaded in the early 1800s and the militias were needed. There were also French, Spanish, and Native American nations or territories adjacent to us from which invaders might attack. There were Native Americans who did not recognize the authority of U.S. citizens to occupy land which the Native Americans saw as their own. The militias were called up and used and they often brought their own weapons to the battle.

My own conclusion is that each of us should be able to own and use appropriate weapons for personal self defense, hunting, and recreation. There should be places where arms are prohibited. Bars top my list. Some weapons (and some kinds of ammunition and magazines) which are very useful for gang wars, assaults on law enforcement, and mass homicides should be banned from private ownership.

I have my own thoughts as to what the limits should be and many readers probably have thoughts on the subject too. This is an issue which the congress should address in order to protect the security of citizens. We need only look to the drug wars and gang violence in Mexico and Central and South America to see how unrestricted access to arms can affect a society. Any semi-organized group in the US can get similar weapons and do similar things. In fact, they already have.

Congress should drop the partisan bickering and think this question through in an intelligent way. We should support legislators who are willing to work through the complex problem then pass wise and enforceable laws for the benefit of public safety. If we keep on doing what we’ve been doing, we will keep on getting what we’ve been getting.