Going too far in a second

At and around the founding of the American republic, a well-armed militia or a combination of a few could have overthrown the government. If necessary, citizen soldiers could have prevailed in a fight to protect the country from tyranny, preserve the rights of the people, abolish a regime that had lost its legitimacy.

Now, fortunately, even a well-armed militia or a combination of a few is no match for the collective power of the police and National Guard, to say nothing of the rest of the armed forces of the United States. Liberals and conservatives alike delight in asserting that our military forces are the most powerful on Earth, even as some people cling to the idea that a stockpile of weapons and ammo accumulated by some 'defenders of liberty' will protect us from dictatorship. The notion that a few weekend warriors with some pickup trucks, handguns and assault rifles could prevail in a battle with the forces commanded by our leaders in Washington is delusional.

Those who use the second amendment to justify unlimited access to firearms should consider not only the hopelessness of their cause—protection against the military might of our nation—but also the dangers to which they are allowing our republic to be exposed. Presently, people with impaired judgment or with evil intentions of ruining our society have nearly unlimited freedom to obtain the sort of weapons that threaten us all and, for that matter, threaten to bring about the very tyranny most supporters of the second amendment want us to resist at all costs.

With every mass shooting, the citizenry inches toward demanding that its government restrict the sale and possession of firearms. Reasonable restrictions on the sale and possession of the most dangerous firearms still appear to be a long way off, but if supporters of our constitution want to preserve the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, they ought to favor restrictions on the sale and possession of weapons by those identified by authorities to be dangerous to the country.

The great fear that many advocates of gun rights have is the fear that a little regulation will soon become a lot—that all guns will be taken away from their owners. That is preposterous, because it is impossible—not impossible in theory, but impossible in practice. Even an amendment to the Constitution did not prevent people from making, selling and consuming alcoholic drinks. And still, restrictions on drunk driving do not threaten to abrogate the right of any sober, licensed citizen to operate a vehicle. Proposed restrictions on the sale and possession of firearms by felons and by those certified as mentally ill and by people suspected of planning terrorist attacks will not lead to the effective banning of weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

The United States has proven to be unparalleled in its ability to adapt to the aspirations of its people. The founders of our nation were brilliant in creating the instrument that restricts some of our actions but protects all of our rights. The challenge has always been to achieve the right balance between the enforcement of laws and the protection of personal freedoms. We do not allow absolute rulers in our country. Taking the second amendment as an absolute rule deprives our government of some of its ability to fulfill its primary responsibility: protecting the people from harm.