Unfortunately, I think a lot of nuance is missed in any major political debate these days be it abortions, guns, or COVID. Here is where I stand on the gun control/safety debate.
Just for reference, the literal text of the second amendment is:
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 am not a constitutional scholar and am pre-supposing certain intent on our forbearers. I also want to distinguish between constitutional intent and interpreting that/best fitting it to today's world. Unfortunately, just like interpretations on the Bible, many people can interpret things and use context clues to read them in different lights.
My Interpretation Of Constitutional IntentTo me, it seems that the founding fathers intended the right to bear arms to refer to the ability for the country and individuals to defend themselves. You'll notice that the first two parts of the amendment specifically refer to the security of a free state and militias. That implies defense of country, land, rights, and other such things. The second part can be interpreted either as being an extension of the first, meaning that within the context of the defense of country the peoples' rights to bear arms shouldn't be infringed, or the comma after the word State can be interpreted more as a semi-colon thus isolating the imperative to the right to bear arms apart from the militia.
Let's also consider the context at the time of the Constitution's framing. The British ruled over the colonies and would not want the citizens to have the free right to bear arms to go after freedom. Like most colonization endeavors, the oppressors would prefer to keep the people in line. The founding fathers did not want to found a country that couldn't stand up against a tyrannical or corrupt government.
Apart from that, yes, people needed guns for hunting and getting food. Guns were also a way of defending one's honor, in terms of having duels and such. (I think)
So, to me the overall Constitutional intent here is that people should have access to bear arms not simply for self-defense against intruders but more as a right so that a large group could defend against a corrupt governing body and/or to protect the country itself from enemies, foreign or domestic.
What It Means For TodayFirst, the founding fathers would NOT have imagined America being the world's largest producer for weapons of war. They would not have anticipated the NRA and gun lobbies nor would they have conceived of weapons capable of firing enough rounds in a minute to make a person look like hamburger meat.
Second, we DO have a military. The military forces protect our country from foreign adversaries. They have the skill and strength to do so. However, they are also in the hands of a potentially and at times provenly corrupt government. Would the military do the "right thing" if the government turned against its own people? I can't say.
Third, we do live in a society that, I hate to say, glamorizes violence. We also live in one of the most mentally challenging times. People don't know how to meet half-way on issues. People can't connect on a human level. People who have deep mental disorders don't get the help that they need. People that have been slowly abused over long periods of time get ignored, then snap. If every person in the country had a gun it would be a VERY dangerous thing.
So, where does that put me on gun ownership overall?
1. I believe that a person of adult age has the right to purchase and own a firearm.
2. I believe that every potential gun owner must have a requirement to undergo a thorough gun safety, maintenance, and shooting practice class.
Note: This class should also cover real-life situations and examples, akin in some ways to police or security training or in regard to hunting, with some level of simulated hunting with other people.
3. Gun owners should be required to re-take, re-train, and re-certify on their weapons every 3-5 years.
4. Potential gun owners should undergo a background check that accounts for both criminal history and mental wellbeing. Any loophole to this needs to be closed. The person cannot obtain a weapon until they pass the background check, no exceptions.
If there is an occasion where a person's mental wellbeing has clearly waned, there should be some kind of safety mechanism in place around that. No, I don't know what it should look like but if someone has tried to commit suicide recently, they probably shouldn't have easy access to a firearm.
5. I don't know where I stand on fully automatic weapons or expanded magazines. I do not know the number of everyday people who use these for a practical purpose. I know they are featured in mass shootings, but I don't know if that alone is a reason to get rid of them fully. We need to look at what, if any, practical use is prior to jumping to conclusions, as the media often does. "Clearly there is not a use for large capacity magazines or automatic weapons except to murder people" is a common line, but I don't know if that is actual fact.
To me, large capacity magazines and fully-automatic weapons do not seem practical, and if there is truly no just cause for them, perhaps they should be banned or only offered for specific purposes. Now again, one could argue that because the military has automatic assault weapons and are beholden to a potentially corrupt government, we would be at a disadvantage if we had to defend ourselves. To that I say the following, the Viet Kong were grossly out-gunned in EVERY possible way and yet they kicked our asses. Human ingenuity can win over human technology, especially when one is fighting for their right to live.
6. If a person ever becomes a threat to themselves or others around them, there needs to be a mechanism to quickly evaluate their access to weapons.
Again, I have no idea how to implement a lot of these things. I'm also not here to fully defend a point-by-point refutation of my opinions. They are just that, opinions and opinions of someone who hasn't studied everything on the pro and cons of the discussion.
WHEW