Second Line

Americans are famously prone to be armed. Pistols in the desk drawer, rifles in the hall cupboard, Mace in the glove compartment. And that is none of our business. They are foreigners and entitled to live their lives in that odd way that foreigners do. Of course I have my own view on gun control which is the same as it is on any other topic -- always just a little looser than whatever is controlling me at the moment. But my view certainly doesn't matter.

But regardless of the way I feel about profuse firearms, I am baffled by one aspect of the whole US gun control argument. How does what American say makes guns legal, actually make them legal? If it is the second, why aren't all weapons legal?

The idea of a right to own weapons comes from the US federal constitution -- this fundamental law is apparently the reason why weapon control laws can't be enacted. The relevant text is, strictly, an amendment, the second amendment, to the the basic document. But it was adopted alongside nine other amendments, collectively called the Bill of Rights, which are intended to defend the individual against what the drafters of the constitution feared might be an over-powerful state. The rights defended in the Bill are effectively those of free speech and religion, access to a fair and efficient legal system and a limitation of the state's scope to that explicitly granted in the constitution. But alongside them is the second, and it reads:

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.

That seems clear enough, and historical context makes it clearer. The idea was to erect another reason for the state to fear the people. That the people could own arms, and if necessary organise themselves as armed forces to defend themselves against its improper actions, and perhaps even overturn it. Ever since, the basic idea that people can own firearms and edged weapons has been unchallenged, and the highest federal courts have confirmed, in this century, that it's the second amendment that protects this ownership.

But that is puzzling, mad.

One objection can be disposed of quite quickly. People who want gun control in the US have argued that the second amendment right would only apply to arms held by an 'official' militia, but the Supreme Court doesn't agree, and since that interpretation would pretty much gut the whole thing, it's not surprising that they don't. The second amendment is entirely about deposing the government, and probably any other official structure too.

My puzzle is different. The point of a militia is to enable irregular troops to engage in combat by providing training and command structures (and equipment, when that's needed.) Depending on the circumstances that have called citizens to assemble as a militia, the fight may be with federal troops, or the troops of a foreign invader. Proper troops that is, regulars, in properly equipped, trained and commanded formations. And that's a bit of a problem, because war isn't about light infantry with foxholes and rifles any more. Regular infantry have helicopters or armoured personal carriers which can provide immediate support with rockets or heavy belt-fed machine guns. Each platoon has recoilless rifles and light machine guns. Section commanders can call in artillery missions or mark targets for bombs and drones. Their logistics deliver adequate supplies and ammunition. However bold the militia may be, however well they know the country, irregular riflemen cannot possibly hold territory -- they may not be defeated, but they can be ejected.

Now it seems as if I'm wrong. Afghanistan shows lightly-armed irregulars holding on regardless of efforts to get rid of them. They take casualties, but they'll still be there when NATO troops have gone. But we should be clear. Their weapons are not their knives and rifles. The mujahideen make their impact with rockets and home made bombs, and through terrorism against the local people. The lesson from that is that the RPG, the grenade and the IED -- not the automatic rifle -- are the basic minimum equipment for militia.

But mines and military rockets, are not, as far as I know, easily legal, by constitutional right, for private citizens to own in the US. The situation is much the same as everywhere else: Arms dealers need a licence and private citizens are -- in fact if not in law -- completely barred. And the situation is the same with any other weapon that would permit people to sensibly call themselves militia: Heavy machine guns (or any machine gun beyond an auto rifle with a big clip) grenades, artillery of various sorts and all the rest. It's all inaccessible and the second amendment has no effect.

And that's my puzzle. Doesn't this mean that the second amendment fell into desuetude years -- decades -- ago, when the people abandoned whatever appetite they had to establish or prepare for any militia worthy of the name? If you want a militia, why don't you allow private citizens to buy an M242 Bushmaster and mount it on the SUV they drive to church? The answer is simply that no-one, even among those who think they care passionately about it, really wants to take the steps necessary to own the weapons that make militias effective. When warfare changed, the people didn't, and as a result, the right to challenge the state's monopoly of violence has been replaced with a shadow that permits toys and hunting guns. And nobody says anything.