Is the Second Amendment killing people?

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, there will be what the National Rifle Association will term as an overblown hysteria about the availability of firearms.

Let's examine the Second 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."

The militia clause is certainly a bother - does it mean that the Amendment applies to those citizens who are a part of the militia, or who may be a part of the militia? What happens when there is no more militia? Or is the militia clause a generality about people being involved in defense activities, and thereby merely one reason to make the right to arms universal? Well, there is a case pending at the United States Supreme Court where the Court will have the opportunity to address that issue. Whether they will actually address it or duck it is anyone's guess - the Supreme Court doesn't operate in the light of day.

A better question (or at least a simpler one) is to examine what the Founding Fathers meant by "arms." In addition to edged weapons, there were indeed firearms which they certainly considered. The only commonly available weapons in the 18th century were muzzleloading flintlocks. Muzzleloading because the powder and projectile were loaded through the muzzle, the front of the weapon; and flintlock meaning that sparks from a flint ignited the powder to fire the weapon. (There were a couple of designs for breach-loading weapons, but they didn't catch on until the end of the American Civil War.) By their nature, 18th century weapons were bulky and single-shot. Muzzleloaders require reloading for each shot. They were bulky because the metals of the time needed to be thick to safely contain the explosion, and only wood was available for the stocks. The time to reload was significant. A musket, which had a smooth bore, took around 20 seconds for a skilled user to reload. A rifle, because of its grooved barrel, required about 30 seconds. The advent of weapons holding more than one charge was significant. Revolving pistols were introduced in the 1830's. Repeating rifles were invented in the late 1850's. A few of the first practical repeating rifles, the Henry Rifle, was used sparingly by the Union in the American Civil War. Southern soldiers who were on the receiving end of the rapid fire referred to that "damned Yankee gun you load on Sunday and still is shooting on Thursday." It is fair to conclude that had the Union Army armourers promoted the mass production and use of Henrys, the war would have been much shorter. (Oddly, perhaps that would have resulted in fewer overall casualties.)

Had the VT gunman gone on campus with the sort of weapon contemplated by the writers of the Second Amendment, he would have killed about 2 people, one in each building. Presumably, he would have been pretty vulnerable to the people present as he took 20 - 30 seconds to reload. The news does not yet describe the weapons, but it seems most probable that what he used were semi-automatic and had reasonably large magazines. As of now, the news is reporting 30 killed and 26 wounded, which suggests an awful lot of ammunition expended. In other words, they were not contemplated by the Founders. Should we then pay obeisance to an intent of the Founders that wasn't really there? What would the writers of the Bill of Rights say about a 56 victim shooting spree by one shooter?

The NRA is right. We should not meet this tragedy with hysteria. But we should give it honest thought.

R