https://web.archive.org/web/20190220145026/https://americanpolicyforum.com/modern-mandatory-militia/
PULLING THE TRIGGER ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Updated March 15, 2018
Originally Published March 10, 2018
PREAMBLE
Fanaticism and indignation. I resent being forced to use these words to describe the discussion of firearms in America, but there is no honest alternative.
We are a country that aspires to cultivate reasoned civil discourse, that prides itself on having an intelligent and engaged public. Most importantly, we are a patchwork of communities that have a sense of unifying civic responsibility to our families, neighborhoods, states, and nation. We are the best example of representative government the world has seen since the decline of the Roman Empire. These statements are not simply dreams of what our country should be, they are demanded of us by the sacrifices of our forefathers and as the continued toll of liberty. For America to maintain the title as a beacon of hope for freedom in the modern era we must do the difficult and necessary work of resolving permanently the unnecessarily divisive issue of guns. We honestly have more important work to be doing.
Firearms are many things to different people. For some they are a means to protect ones self and family. To others, they are a tool for gathering wild game. However, to a growing segment of the population they are foreign, terrifying, and pose only great risks. The general unfamiliarity with firearms by half the population, combined with the fevered pitch rhetoric has reached over this wedge issue, has lead to an interesting situation where the typical liberal interest in exploration and experience based decision making is being overwhelmed with an uncharacteristic risk aversion.
Being a liberal millennial myself, years ago I decided that if I was going to have an opinion on gun control I needed to actually have some experience with guns. What I learned during this experience fundamentally changed how I look at this issue. Before, I had always seen reasonable gun control as any policy that reduced gun violence while still allowing for firearm recreation. What I had failed to understand is that the discussion around firearms is not just about guns, it is an existential question regarding the relationship we want to have with our government and the level of civic responsibility we believe should be required of our countrymen.
This lack of clarity on the actual point of discussion is, I believe, the central reason that we as a country have been talking past each other for the last century. This essay seeks to dissolve this obstruction, and in doing so provide us a path forward through the formal implementation of mandatory modern militias.
RIGHT TO LIFE AND GUN CULTURE
All people have a fundamental right to protect themselves and their families in the face of immediate violence. We don’t need a Constitutional allowance for this, and as liberals we should be academically honest enough to recognize this fact. For many people, regardless of their motivating reason, a semiautomatic pistol is the practical tool for this job. They can be compact, easily concealable, light, and accurate. Regardless of the type of firearm selected, proficiency is important. It was while learning to shoot with a little 22 rifle at my public shooting range that I had my first experience with gun culture.
The first thing that struck me when I began going to the range was the earnest and friendly nature of those training. There is religious dedication to safety and helpfulness that is enforced not just by the Range Safety Officers (RSOs) but also the customers. In fact, it is not uncommon for new shooters to get unsolicited instruction from multiple people.
For people who are at the range the message is clear, firearm safety is not just a personal responsibility. Firearm safety is a community responsibility. Is the person next to you being careless with the direction their muzzle is pointing? Correct it. Is the person putting their finger on the trigger before they have aimed? Say something. Are they having trouble hitting their target or getting a consistent group? Take some time out of your day to help them improve their aim.
One of the great benefits of public shooting ranges is it provides an environment where the fundamentals of safety can be taught and reinforced. Every time you help correct a bad habit at the range you are helping to prevent an accident outside of it. Spend enough time at the range and you will eventually get the chance to see those who were once receiving the assistance being to ones to provide it to the next wave of new shooters.
I found that most people who carry and come to the range to train are not braggadocious. They are not hoping for a future conflict nor relishing the thought of being a hero. They are in large part practical people trying to get better at a skill they hope they will never need to use. Importantly, the more experience they get with firearms the more they come to realize the limits of their own abilities and the scope of situations they might actually be effective.
I used to believe that the majority of people who conceal carry are a bunch of hotheads. I was wrong. Gun culture, in my experience, is in the most part quiet, patient, and filled with a sense of communal responsibility.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONFUSION
“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.”
I want to begin by flatly avoiding a discussion about punctuation or whether the “well regulated Militia” is a requirement for keeping arms. I find these kinds of arguments the exact type of technical gamesmanship that undermine cooperative discussion and mutual understanding.
In my mind, the Right to Life argument is sufficient to ensure the individuals inalienable right to bear arms. What I really want to discuss is the abject failure of most state governments to provide sufficient requirements, guidance, or review of their militias.
The motivation of the second amendment is clear: states have an obligation to maintain a well regulated militia as it is a necessary component of representative democracy. A militia is not just the National Guard. It is the entirety of the civilian population that may be required in times of crisis to be mustered for service to their state.
We would all like to think that the future will be filled with perpetual improvements in prosperity and security. I would like to believe our government is prepared for all possible natural disasters. I would like to believe we will be able to engineer our way out of the eventual water, energy, and food scarcity that our increasing environmental pressures are generating. I would like to think that in the post-nuclear era that we, as Americans, will never be called upon to defend our country or our allies in the horrific trench warfare or urban skirmishes of the last century. I would like to believe that, as the technological revolution continues, human beings, stripped of their economic worth, will still be of political and social value to their countrymen. I would like to believe these things, but I would rather we do a small amount of preparation for the unimaginable than to be caught completely unprepared at a turn of history.
Less than half of all states have an active State Defense Force for the organization, training, and regulation of the civilian population. This lack of organization is devastating whenever there are large numbers of casualties or a general crisis situation. Americans are goodhearted citizens and when tragedy strikes they arrive on scene in droves to assist. However, not knowing who to report to or having adequate training for the situation reduces our effectiveness and can actually be a hindrance to the trained first responders. This is a Constitutional failure by the majority of America.
When a state avoids the responsibility of setting militia standards for their civilian population, they allow the image of the militia member to be dominated by extremist groups. When people think of their militia the first thing they think of should not be assault weapons in the woods. It should be an amalgamation of volunteerism, annual drills, crisis management training, medical training, and lastly range time. When people mention the word militia you should be thinking of yourself, your neighbors, and the chain of command you would report to in the event of an emergency.
None of this is to suggest that the civilian population should not keep and be proficient in the use of weapons. There is always the possibility that your state may one day issue a call to arms. Should that day ever come, it is better for you and your country if you are skilled in the use of the weapons you will be required to employ. As of the writing of this article this means that, as a civilian, you should be training and prepared to report for duty with an AR-15 rifle and a Sig Sauer P320 pistol.
This leads us naturally into a discussion about the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the role it has to play in resolving this constitutional crisis. For an organization that praises the Second Amendment continuously, they have done remarkably little to avoid the degradation of State Defense Forces. Instead of pushing for better organization at the state level and universal requirements for annual participation, training, and proficiency they have been myopically dedicated to fighting legal battles centered around an individual's Right to Life. Should the NRA choose to focus its efforts on building a strong, mandatory militia system in the United States they may just find that they no longer need to spend their time, money, and efforts fighting legal battles and running political elections. They may just find they have the time to focus on their originally chartered mission: ensuring that the general population is proficient in the use of the firearms they are required to use in times of war.
In fact, should universal militia requirements be implemented across the states, the best use of training time at the state level would likely be focused on group coordination, first responder training, communications technology proficiency, and community service. There simply would not be enough time (or likely money) to qualify everyone with a firearm. This is where the NRA should work with the US Army to develop a set of shooting standards that individuals can certify under, independent of the time and budget constraints of their state. The Civilian Marksmanship Program may be a suitable organization to oversee these efforts. This certification should be mandatory for all adults. This requirement would both better prepare us as a nation for a crisis and also ensure that all persons are trained in how to properly use, clear, and secure firearms. Most importantly, by making firearms use and proficiency mandatory we may be able to reduce the fear that surrounds them caused by inexperience.
THE STATE OF GUN VIOLENCE
With the preceding discussion about personal rights and constitutional responsibility we completely neglected to discuss the primary motivation for differences between Liberals and Conservatives on firearms. Deaths caused by guns.
With over 36,000 firearm related deaths recorded in 2017 [Table 11. National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 66, No. 6, November 27, 2017] it is no small wonder that there is a national discussion about the impact firearms are having in our communities. However, before we delve any deeper it is important to understand how that number of fatalities are subdivided.
Deaths by Firearms (2017)
All Deaths: 36,252
Unintentional: 489
Suicide: 22,018
Homicide: 12,979
Undetermined: 282
Legal Intervention/war: 484
First, firearm deaths are not primarily caused by negligent firearm use. While 489 were needless and preventable we can immediately see that for the millions of firearms in our country that are discharged every year, the vast majority of firearm use does not lead to an unintentional death.
Second, there is an epidemic of suicide in this nation which needs addressed. In fact, suicide is the major contributor to the firearm death statistics.
Third, homicides from both criminal and domestic violence comprise nearly 30% of the annual fatalities related to firearms. Most of the firearms used in criminal activity are illegally obtained. The National Crime Victimization Surveys (NCVS) publish periodic results regarding the number of crimes that are prevented due to the use of firearms. The NCVS routinely demonstrates that at least 65,000 violent crimes are prevented every year by people using firearms in self defense. It is important to note that the NCVS provides the most conservative estimate on the rate of violent crime prevention by firearms.
Fourth, mass shootings (where there are four or more deaths not including the shooter) receive the most media attention but contribute very little to the annual fatality rate (typically <1%). While they are terrifying and dramatic, focusing all of our attention on preventing a mass shooter scenario is the most effective way to ensure that we never make any real progress in reducing gun violence.
SOCIAL ILLS
Now that we have taken the time to actually review the state of gun violence in America it becomes clear that solving this problem requires more than simple regulatory changes. What we need to fight against is the erosion of communal bonds that are leaving so many Americans feeling isolated and desperate. The hopelessness that leads a person to commit a crime or to take their own life is the real enemy in this saga.
In the last fifty years we have seen the disintegration of the family and with it a corresponding rise in our citizens feelings of isolation and loneliness. Families are fragmented by record high rates of divorce. The average number of children per household has decreased even within stable marriages. Siblings have been proven to be each other's closest allies and enduring supporters, and fewer siblings results in fewer lifelong companions. In the age of no fault divorce and sophisticated family planning options I am not sure that this trend is going to change. What I do want to point out is that our familial responsibility and support is vanishing.
Traditionally, when a person’s family safety net failed them the next level of support came from their church. While the rise in secularism has left many with a personal sense of enlightenment it has also left them very much alone. There is, simply put, no secular alternative to church for civic engagement and community involvement. In a nation where the secular isolationist is becoming the norm, it is increasingly important for us to develop a new system of bringing people together outside of work.
In parallel to the disintegration of the personal safety net, Americans are also seeing a reduction in their economic security. The gig economy is rising and with it a record low in job security. Exorbitant healthcare costs can bankrupt an entire family irrespective of their planning or work ethic. The U.S. infrastructure, which has allowed the post war prosperity we have enjoyed, is trillions of dollars behind in maintenance and upgrades. Sadly, inter-generational poverty has been shown to stifle the American dream for thousands of our citizens. These larger social issues, which tend to be the focus of liberals, are tangentially related to the issue of guns in America through the poverty, crime, and instability they breed. If we are going to ask liberals to engage in an open minded discussion about guns, we should also ask conservatives to give these issues equal consideration.
While the implementation of mandatory modern militias is not a panacea to the issue of gun violence, it may help provide us some of the infrastructure needed to begin addressing the larger societal problems. It is my hope that, even though there is no true replacement for a strong family and faith community, service in a militia may give our citizens a common sense of purpose and responsibility that is vanishing from this generation.
The abysmal voter turnout even in the most charged election cycles demonstrates how little buy in the average citizen has for our country. The organization of a mandatory modern militia will provide us a central nationalist identity that unites peoples of disparate backgrounds and provides them a common vision for their future.
It is also my hope that local militia chapters would naturally become hubs for community engagement, volunteerism, and networking (providing the kind of face to face interactions that actually get people jobs). Through annual service and training we could work together to repair our crumbling infrastructure and neighborhoods while planning on how best to protect our achievements for future generations. Most importantly, if the left and right can agree to work together to improve our country, we might just find some respect for each other in the process.
CONCLUSION
The debate around firearms has been divided between a desire to increase the public safety on the whole and preserving the individual right to defend oneself. I believe this to be a false choice and one that has been a dividing issue among what should be a united and patriotic public.
The real question is whether or not we are willing to sacrifice an occasional weekend in order to build the strong communities with the high standard of public engagement requisite in a robust Republic. Are we willing to do our duty as citizens? To live up to the expectation of the Second Amendment by ensuring the preparedness of our nation and the liberty of the individual?
If we do these things, and organize our militias to combat the ills of America, we may just be able to achieve a healthier state, a safer country, and an enduring Republic.
Copyright © 2019 American Policy Forum