Reflections on the Navy Yard

As most of you know, when I was in DC, I worked at the Navy Yard in the History and Heritage Command with the Photo Curator. Yesterday, the news of a shooting at the base where I worked was strange. I walked right where all the reporters were and I know most of the buildings (kinda) that they were talking about.

In my 7 hours of CNN, everything was familiar. Given, I was in Building 44/108 and the shooting was in Building 197. But, there's only four blocks between the two. They were talking about base police: the people who checked my ID. Even the front of the Department of Transportation was familiar.

Sadly, tragedies like this one have become too much a part of life in this country (even this was not the first mass shooting at a military installation). But, this is the first one in a place I have been--and not for an insignificant amount of time. Like many people, I suppose, I felt safe there. The security was good (I needed a pass that was checked everyday) but it wasn't the most secure place. As occurred yesterday, anyone with a pass is pretty much let into the Yard. I fear one fall out is going to be increased security at the Yard. While that would be, I suppose, a good thing, I cannot help but think that will not solve the overall problem.

What I see as the root of the problem is societal, and isn't even one problem. I'm not sure about the individual who did the shooting, and I don't want to speculate about him. But, one of the problems is the access to guns in this country. That the rifle he used (and that has been used in numerous mass shootings in the past few years) was even available to civilians, seems crazy to me. Why would anyone need that kind of gun? I don't buy the argument that only people with guns can stop other people with guns. The "Right to Bear Arms" in the 2nd Amendment... also confuses me.

(I am now going to slip into historian mode. Sorry, not sorry.)

The 2nd Amendment 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." (from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)

Obviously, the meaning is not clear... considering there are 3 commas... BUT in looking at the historical context of this sentence (aka what a "Militia" was, what was meant by "a free State," and what "Arms" were), I think we can clear the confusion, at least a little.

First: "A well regulated Militia": A Militia is composed of, basically, civilians to supplement the army in an emergency (paraphrased from my desktop dictionary). Militias were very important during the Revolutionary War, before the colonies could actually form an army. Militias are volunteers... what I would now consider the National Guard. (I looked up the National Guard on Wikipedia... sue me). (Another quick side note: until World War I, the entire armed forces in the US was voluntary but state Militias and the National Reserves existed.) So, we still have "a well regulated Militia"... at least how I understand it.

So, if we substitute "a National Guard" for "A well regulated Militia", we get "A National Guard, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moving next to "a free State."

"A free State"... uh... I would think that would be obvious... but lets just say a "free State" is one that upholds the Constitution, or, you know, the one we have.

Now for the "Arms" concept. The American Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. I think we can all agree "Arms" have undergone massive shifts in the last 222 years. I'm not an arms expert, something I am proud of, so I won't try to go into details. I will clear up my ideas in a second, promise.

 Now, I've already put National Guard in for Militia. The phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State" now refers to the Militia. So, to ensure the future of the State, a Militia is required. OK, so we need volunteers who will be civilians except for during emergencies. Now we get "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." The militiamen of the late 18th century had muskets and, as I understand, access to additional weapons at a local armory. I am not entirely sure what this means in the current context, but I think I am making progress in understanding what it meant in 1790.

So, if we say that "the people" of the "bear Arms" section are the people of the Militia, then the 2nd Amendment affirms the need for a voluntary military force (that will only be a military force in an emergency), the need for that force to be armed, and the importance of that force to the continuation of the State.

This has been a long explanation for something, I see as, relatively simple. If you hadn't guessed by now, I'm for regulation of guns. But not just because I think it's stupid for regular people to have assault rifles, also because I understand the context in which the 2nd Amendment was written.

[Three things:
One: when I started, I was just going to quickly say how tragic it is that another mass shooting has occurred and how strange it is to actually know the place it happened.

Two: I am sorry this was long. But I am not sorry if you don't care about history. Like anything, this is my opinion, so I also don't particularly care if you disagree with my interpretation of the history or my conclusions. I am sorry if this sounded preachy... I am simply tired of people making arguments based on simple readings of history or disregarding history in general. Something I believe in, and am trying to be better at, is seeing things complexly--ideas, situations, people... nouns.

Three: I will probably do an actual update soon]