THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE WAKE OF NEWTOWN
The senseless attack on school children and teachers on December 14 has left everyone in America with a sense of overwhelming grief, horror and sadness. We all wonder why this occurred and how it might have been prevented. We all want to wake up and discover that it was just a bad dream, and we know that isn’t going to happen. We are wide-awake and in pain.
In response to this tragedy, we are hearing renewed calls for “gun control.” Gun control advocates are urging a renewal of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004. Their argument is that if the shooter had not had a semi-automatic weapon, he wouldn’t have been able to kill the children and teachers. They are urging new restrictions on large magazines, and a variety of other gun-related restrictions, and that laws should be passed incorporating all of those restrictions. They ignore the fact that the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban did not make any significant change in gun crime.
My belief is, although I share, with other Americans, sadness and horror in the wake of the Newtown massacre, that such anti-gun sentiments are misplaced, and even if put into law, would be ineffective in preventing similar tragedies in the future. If we are going to do anything, and I do believe there are steps that we can and should take to reduce the likelihood of future violence, the steps we take should be only those that move us to a condition where such attacks are less likely. I don’t think such attacks can ever be completely prevented.
Gun rights advocates have, ever since President Obama was elected in 2008, been issuing dire warnings that the Democrats “want to take our guns.” While I recognize that there are indeed members of the political left who are profoundly “anti-gun,” I don’t believe that is a characterization that can be uniformly applied to all Democrats. I am one such very active Democrat who also supports the Second Amendment, although my reasons are not those one usually hears discussed in the media.
One way to look at this issue is to ask what would happen if we were to move to the most extreme “anti-gun” position and simply eliminate the Second Amendment? I suggest that there is ample evidence that even such an extreme step would be, at least theoretically, ineffective in preventing similar tragedies.
As proof of that proposition, I point to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. That event occurred while the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was in effect, and killed 168 people, including 19 children under age 6 in the day care center of the Murrah Federal Building, without using a gun.
From my perspective, the problem is not one of guns, but the culture of violence that we have developed and continue to cultivate and encourage in America and the modern world. That culture is particularly effective in its impact on children and young adults, as it is promoted in films (like those of Quentin Tarentino), video games, and violent online websites.
Even mainstream cinema producers/directors like Steven Spielberg produce films so profoundly violent that normal adults are shocked. I recall the reports that film critics had to ask the screening of “Saving Private Ryan” be stopped after the first 15 minutes, because the violence depicted in the D-Day landing was so explicit and repugnant.
Ultimately, the gun violence that we are experiencing every day, and there is no doubt that gun violence is a serious problem, particularly in our larger cities, is a consequence not only of the fact that there are guns out there in our society, but also that some of our citizens lack the responsibility to use those guns, or not use them, properly, or are simply criminals who don’t care who they kill or wound. We desperately need effective strategies to deal with the criminal, out-of-control gun violence in cities, where drive-by shootings occur almost daily, and where local law enforcement seems unable or unwilling to act effectively to stop it. In Miami, law enforcement is part of the problem, with numerous police shootings of unarmed persons on their recent record. That kind of gun violence needs to stop too and the shooters need to be punished, which typically does not happen.
It must be noted as a side observation here that America is probably the greatest exporter of guns in the world, and we have for decades poured armaments into nations all over the world, and have celebrated that fact as part of our national balance of payments. The largest arms makers are some of the most influential corporations in Washington, DC. It also needs to be recognized that recent anti-terrorism measures have militarized local police forces and turned them into domestic standing armies. We saw the negative impacts of this trend in Miami during the FTAA police riot, where police attacked peaceful demonstrators.
We hear many pro-gun statements from the NRA, but they are conspicuously absent from the discussion to analyze urban gun crime and develop strategies to reduce it. If there is anything the NRA should be doing to protect our gun rights, it should be maintaining an active presence in those discussions, and seeking to find effective approaches to make real and substantial reductions in gun crime, in ways that do not threaten the gun rights of law-abiding gun owners.
As the President said, paraphrased, immediately after the shootings in Newtown, “this is a complex problem, and there are no simple solutions.” Despite the President’s words, most of the “solutions” that have been proposed since then are a) simple and b) would be ineffective in preventing future occurrences like Newtown.
I heard in the President’s recent news conference that he has appointed Vice President Biden to head a commission to look at the Newtown tragedy and come up with a federal response. That is good news. Joe Biden is a reasonable person, and at least theoretically, can appreciate not only the cry for more gun restrictions, but the counter-arguments for a broader examination of all the factors leading to this disaster.
I also heard a very enlightened Senator Joe Lieberman, who has never been thought of, at least by me, as particularly conservative, calling for a new look at mental heath. To me that makes a lot of sense, because if someone is mentally ill, but highly intelligent, as the Newtown shooter seems to have been, from the little we have heard so far, there is no reason to believe that lack of access to a firearm would prevent them from carrying out an attack. Timothy McVeigh, to whom I referred earlier, is such a person. It is also possible that a future attacker, lacking access to guns, would use some other vehicle for their mayhem. I am not going to suggest any particular such vehicles here.
On December 21, the NRA proposed that the solution to this problem is to have armed guards in each school. That approach has many inherent problems itself. First, I would not want our schools to become armed camps. Second, many of the schools are so large that many armed guards would be necessary, and perhaps multiple shifts, for their campus. The costs would be prohibitive, to have people standing by for an emergency that would be unlikely to happen. The likelihood that such guards would be minimum wage, poorly trained, and unable to effectively respond to a real attack is very high. I have been in countries where routine civilian locations had armed guards, and it was not the kind of place I want America to be. For me, this just shows, again, the inability of the NRA to relate to ordinary America.
The challenge here is to find meaningful actions, that most Americans can endorse, including both gun control advocates and 2nd Amendment supporters, that have any potential for actually preventing, or even diminishing the likelihood of future tragedies like Sandy Hook.
I would like to suggest that we all, every component of our society, need to each do what we can to make substantive realistic changes in the way we do things, to achieve the above goal.
The deadly combination here was a person with a mental problem and access to a lethal weapon. If anyone reading this doesn’t think the shooter had a mental problem, there is no point in reading further. My conclusion is that a sane person won’t go into a school, or a theater, or a shopping mall, and kill people.
So what could have been the shooter’s motivations? Did he have voices in his head like the child in the northwest who killed his parents because loved them so much he couldn’t let them live to know he had failed them in some way? That is the only such shooter I have heard about who survived his actions to describe his motivations. Did the Sandy Hook shooter act because he had some personal conflict with someone at the school, or somehow someone related to his mother? We may never know.
Here are a few things that Americans could do if we are really serious about reducing the crazy attacks on civilians:
1. Some shooters may, out of some kind of frustration, be seeking to make a special place in history for themselves. Every media outlet, whether newspapers, radio or TV stations, network news, or online news of any kind, should immediately and voluntarily resolve, state clearly and publicly that resolve, and carry out that resolution, to never again give out, use or otherwise release the name of any such perpetrator in the future.
Everyone in America, who might want to gain the notoriety that accompanies such an action, should be on notice that if they commit an act of violence they will not get even one mention in any public forum. This would remove the desire for fame as a motivation. The observant reader will have noticed that the name of the Sandy Hook shooter does not appear anywhere here in this article, and will not appear in anything I publish. That criminal person is a manifestation of evil, and “one who must not be named,” as far as I am concerned.
2. Every producer of First Amendment protected material that celebrates violence should voluntarily stop producing and distributing such material. This includes Quentin Tarentino and others of his ilk. It includes the sellers of violent and gun-fighting video games and online games where the player advances depending on how many opponents he kills. I have heard that there are “studies” showing such games don’t cause the players to become more violent, and I don’t believe it. My belief is that either the studies are flawed, or they didn’t follow particular players who have the personality type that is likely to be influenced and altered by playing violent games.
I am not the only person who has identified this culture of violence as a factor in the latest tragedy. Here is an excerpt from a recent letter from a Mr. John Donnelly of Key Largo to the Key West Citizen newspaper:
“Children are steeped in culture of violence
The cultural decline and the vacuum confronting our children has been filled with entertainment whose emphasis is on violence. Internet games and videos have seductively taken the minds of these very young and impressionable kids to a place where some find joy, comfort and excitement when they are able to rapidly kill the individuals set before them on their video screens.
Their skills are sharpened as they progress into the upward realms of each challenge. Upon maxing out their "kill ratio," they promptly move on to their next murderous conquest.
Violent thoughts and emotional detachment have gained a stranglehold on many children. They competitively pursue these games into adulthood. At some point it appears that these players may become mesmerized with the self-induced pleasure from the ease and proficiency with which they dominate the fictitious people they kill. A mind-numbing desensitization can take hold.
Studies indicate these malleable brains become saturated with stimulating chemicals while engaged in these activities. It produces a state of arousal that is desirable and addictive. These impulses establish neural pathways that can be hardwired into a child's brain.
Evidence suggests that after a person becomes satiated with these theoretical killings, some need to pursue an actual event where a life is taken. Their normal bombardment by violent visual stimuli no longer satisfies them. This need for further stimulation, so a pleasured state of mind may be achieved, is an unusually strong impulse.
Many families allow their children to be exposed to this steady stream of violence….”
3. America, through action by Congress, needs to make a new federal commitment to effective mental health programs, for all residents of the United States, regardless of where they live, whether they are employed, whether they have their own health insurance, or anything else. If we are not sufficiently committed to reducing violence to pay for mental health care as a nation, it is only a pretend solution to focus entirely on guns as the cause and solution to this problem.
4. America’s gun owners need to realize that the best form of “gun control” is “responsible gun ownership.” Sandy Hook and Columbine would not have occurred if children had not been able to access their parents’ guns. Guns need to be stored in a secure manner, consistent with the owner’s individual circumstances.
5. Parents need to exercise better supervision of their children, including the TV they are watching and the video games they are playing.
6. Our educational system is a disaster. Unacceptable percentages of high school graduates can’t read. This effectively means that we are turning out illiterate graduates who are more likely to turn to crime as a survival method. It is time for us to make public education actually work, not by giving vouchers to private schools or by diverting public funds to politically connected charter schools, as we have seen here in Florida, but by real educational reform and restoring comprehensive education, including art, music, science, and the whole spectrum of educational experience to our youth. We need to eliminate the dozens of administrative positions in our schools and replace them with teachers. This will cost money and we need to commit to paying the increased taxes required to pay for it. In conjunction with #5 above, parents must be actively involved in their children’s educations.
7. Not to put too fine a point on it, in order for adults to be involved effectively in their children’s educations, they need well-paying jobs that allow them to have time for their kids. That means well-paying jobs, not part-time minimum wage time-killers. And they need affordable childcare so that working mothers don’t have to spend most of what they earn on their child’s day care. These issues are not separate problems, but all a part of the education needs of children.
If we want to reduce crime, we need to reinvigorate our economy, so that people can afford to support their children and have parenting time to spend with them. If we are serious about this issue, we need, as a nation, to take a fresh look at our entire economic system and the underlying principles that make it work, or in this case are keeping it from working. Robert Reich has described this need in detail and Congress should be involving him in finding solutions.
For the last 50 years, our society and government has maintained a bias that favors corporations over individuals, management over labor, and corporate profits over employee salaries. These policies, in the form of different tax rates on investment income versus earned income, “right to work” laws, and other ways to put the corporate thumb on the scale of employee incomes have systematically reduced the income of ordinary Americans and increased the income of a very small group of influential investors. The result is that the median white working male in the US is making, adjusted for inflation, less today than he was in 1973, while the people at the top have seen their incomes increase by 250 percent or more. Those inequities, which are obvious if one cares to look, underlie all of the other problems we are seeing in our nation. If we really care about this country, rather than just posturing about the immediate tragedy, we need to be making substantive changes in the balance of power in the USA.
It is also true that a large percentage of the children born in the US are born to single mothers, who are unable to support their children without government assistance, and are equally unable to afford the cost of an abortion. The children born as a result of these conditions are more at risk for future involvement in gangs and associated crime, because of lack of parental involvement in their lives. That some children nevertheless avoid this trap, and some single mothers manage to raise successful children, is certainly deserving of great praise, but I suspect those examples of successful child-rearing are the exception and not the rule.
The NRA is correct on one point. Anti-gun advocates constantly refer to “gun violence” as a buzzword for the thing they oppose. We all, including Second Amendment supporters, oppose gun violence. But the idea that gun violence is the problem implies that it is the “gun” that is the source of the problem. The proper term for these events is “crime,” and the real problem is the criminals. Gun crime is only one manifestation of the breakdown of the social contract between members of our society. The growing disparity in incomes between the poor and the rich, and the shrinking middle class is an equally valid, and equally serious cause of the decline of our social contract. People living in small communities see much less of this, because everyone knows everyone else, and there are fewer loners.
I say this from the perspective of someone who was a nerdy loner myself when I was in high school. And to further emphasize the difference between then and now, I used to bring my rifle to school on a regular basis, because our high school rifle club would be going to the YMCA range downtown for some target competition. That experience served me well six or seven years later, when I entered the Army, and I was one of the best shots in my Basic Training Company. Our “zero tolerance for guns” policies in schools, where girls get expelled for having a pistol charm on their charm bracelet, has perverted our thinking about guns and made it nearly impossible for people to rationally address these kinds of issues. The NRA’s extremist views in the opposite direction are equally unhelpful in addressing the issues.
Having said all of the above, and the reader who has been paying attention will notice that items #1 through #7 above don’t even mention any aspect of “gun control,” I think it is time to discuss the Second Amendment.
A few nights ago, PBS had a special about religious freedom. America is an amazing place, from the perspective of religion. We, who were born here, have enjoyed the most amazing good fortune, in many respects due to the existence of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. One dinner visitor we had a few years ago, a visiting social worker from a Muslim nation in North Africa, commented on her observations of the United States. She said, “there seems to be a church on every corner.” And she was right.
Here in South Florida, to my knowledge, we have Catholic and Protestant churches in many varieties, Jewish temples, Islamic mosques in several varieties, Buddhist temples in several varieties, Bahá’í houses of worship, and who knows what else. This rich cultural diversity is a result of the First Amendment.
The point of the PBS special, for me, was that religion wasn’t included in the Bill of Rights as an accident, or for any casual reason. There were serious issues the authors of the Bill of Rights felt needed to be included there, because someone might later fail to understand their seriousness.
The same motivation has to be read into the Second Amendment.
In recent newscasts, since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I have heard numerous commentators, newsmen and politicians say that (paraphrased) “there is no reason anyone needs a military-style semi-automatic weapon for hunting or target practice.”
Now, I confess I don’t know whether the politicians in that group are saying what they are saying because they really believe it, or only to appeal to their constituents. I don’t know whether the so-called “newsmen” in that group are saying what they are saying because some research on their part has brought them to that conclusion, or just because their editor demands that they produce so many thousand words each day. But I would be willing to bet that if I gave each of them a lever action 30.06, a full-automatic M-14, a bolt action Lee-Enfield, an AR-15, a pump action shotgun, a .30 caliber Garand rifle, and a Wham-o slingshot, at least some of them would not be able to tell which ones were “semi-automatic” and which were not and why.
The US Supreme Court’s fairly recent ruling in the “District of Columbia vs. Heller” case, 554 US 570 (2008), emphasized the use of handguns for “self-defense” and affirmed the right of individuals to possess such guns for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self defense, within the District of Columbia. The subsequent “McDonald vs. Chicago” case, 561 US 3025 (2010), extended that recognition to the states.
There is a long history of US Supreme Court cases regarding the Second Amendment, dating back into the nineteenth century. As a group, they all seem to give lip-service to the right of citizens to “own and bear arms” but almost all of them find the authority of the state or federal government to take precedence over the rights of individuals as stated in the Second Amendment.
When we think about it, it is not nor should it be unexpected that the government authority, expressed by the court system, will always seek to find its own acts valid when questioned.
Indeed, there are well-established legal principles that begin with an assumption of validity of actions of government agencies, and place the burden of proving impropriety of agency decisions on the complainants. In current times, we have seen in the US Supreme Court, a bias not only in favor of the government, but also in favor of employer-corporations, using a similar theory. The advocates of this kind of thinking call themselves “conservative.” I call them un-American.
Thus, when Lily Ledbetter alleged gender-based discrimination by her employer in denying her raises and promotions, when for years and years she had received less pay than her male counterparts doing the same job, some of whom she had trained, the US Supreme Court, in an infamously bad decision, ruled that she had missed the window to complain about it within a short time period after the first such occurrence, even though she did not discover the discriminatory treatment until years later.
Still, “we are a nation of laws, and not of men,” a rule that we all need to remember. We have a republic, whereby we democratically elect our representatives, who make the laws, the executive, whom we also elect, enforces those laws. And the courts rule on questions that come up about the interpretation of laws in the context of our Constitution. It is, in my opinion, the best system ever devised for the organization of government.
So why are the provisions in the Bill of Rights there, anyway? Here is the explanation from the official US government web site, www.archives.gov:
During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.
Those provisions are so short that we can repeat them here.
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
To keep this discussion to a reasonable length, let’s just look at the first five amendments. Were any of them included simply for cosmetic or frivolous reasons? I don’t think so.
The Fifth Amendment is to prevent anyone from being coerced into testifying against himself, or to be deprived of his life or property without just compensation and “due process.” It requires an indictment before prosecution for capital crimes and prohibits trial more than once for the same alleged crime. Is it possible that the way the British ran things before the Revolution had anything to do with this? Likely.
Here is a discussion of the background. http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/5th-amendment.html
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, and requires a warrant before government can search your property. England had strong laws protecting private property from government intrusion, but in the colonies, British authorities trampled those rights. A Boston lawyer, James Otis, who was the top lawyer for the Crown, spoke up against the British government’s actions and resigned his position. John Adams, who would later become President, called Otis’s speech “the speech that sparked the American Revolution.” The authors of the Bill of Rights obviously wanted it clearly spelled out that such abuses were prohibited.
Here is more information: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/4th-amendment.html
The Third Amendment prohibits quartering troops in homes.
See: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/third-amendment.html
The Second Amendment, as well, was not an incidental inclusion. There was a long history of individual ownership of arms and the public possession of them in English history, and in the colonies.
For a thorough discussion, see: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf
The First Amendment protects several rights that were considered essential by its authors; religion, speech, assembly, press and very important, to petition the government.
Here is a good discussion: http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/history.php
In all of this, it is obvious that the Second Amendment isn’t there to enable Americans to hunt or defend their homes from bad guys. Those are only incidental side-benefits of possessing weapons under the Second Amendment. Senator Amy Klobochar (D. Minnesota) says we can have gun restrictions that don’t interfere with her father’s deer stand. But the Second Amendment isn’t there to protect her father’s deer stand. It is there to provide the weapons to defend the Constitution, and the people of the United States from enemies, either foreign or domestic. It is there to prevent tyrannical government, either foreign or our own, from exercising power in violation of our Constitution. As is mentioned in the Second Amendment article above, it is also there to insure that there is a counterforce or check to abuses by the standing army that was authorized by the Constitution.
As a veteran, I believe that most of the members of our military recognize that their chain of command answers to civilians. In America, the civilians run the military, not the other way around. That contrasts dramatically with many other American nations, where the military runs things. In my view, it is the Second Amendment that insures the Constitution is protected and has given us the stability to endure for over 220 years.
So the question has to come up; can the Constitution be protected, as the authors of the Bill of Rights intended, if citizens are restricted to single-shot, bolt-action rifles? Or perhaps, since the rifles of the 18th century were muzzle-loading flintlocks, today’s citizens right to bear arms applies only to those who still have muzzle-loaders? I don’t think so. Is that what those Supreme Court justices who assert that the Constitution means today exactly what it meant in 1879 would claim? I don’t want to find out.
Contrary to those commentators who repeatedly attempt to suggest that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect our individual right to have modern military-type weapons, I suggest just the opposite. The Second Amendment loses its meaning if the right of citizens to keep and bear arms doesn’t include the right to keep and bear weapons that are in the same league as the individual weapons carried by military forces today, as they were equivalent to the then-current weapons of the British at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. We don’t have to include such weapons as bazookas, tanks, and machine guns, because in the military we call those weapons “crew served,” and they are most certainly not individual weapons.
Those military-equivalent weapons include semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 and clones that have been used in our crazy tragedies. They include the high-capacity magazines and all the other bells and whistles that can be assembled in time of emergency to resist an enemy, foreign or domestic. It isn’t easy, or simple, because our ownership of such weapons carries with it, as all “rights” invariably do, equivalent responsibilities to keep them from persons who would misuse them. We also have to recognize that sometimes there may be failures, even in our own attempts to control their use. That danger is inherent in our ownership of these weapons.
At the beginning of this article, I postulated the possibility of simply eliminating the Second Amendment. My conclusion is that such a change would, in effect, be the end of the Constitution, because the Second Amendment is the people’s guardian against oppression by the government.
On December 21, Wayne LaPierre, the vice president of the NRA, claimed that the only way to protect against a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy there with a gun. I believe I have that quote right. I have to disagree. That may be one of the ways, but a better way is to keep the bad guy from getting the gun in the first place. It is for that reason we have background checks, a system that has been ineffective, as it has been used so far.
Anti-gun spokespeople are quick to point to the “gun show loophole,” as a defect in the background check system. They are partly right. The reality is that the background check requirement only requires gun “dealers” to do a background check before selling a gun, but private sales between individuals are exempted from the background check requirement. That exemption means that about 40 percent of all gun sales are completed without a background check. That needs to be changed, to require all gun sales to go through a background check. We also need to recognize that no matter how much we strengthen the background checks, it still won’t stop sales between criminals and theft of guns as pathways for guns to get into the hands of criminals.
We need to insure that individuals who can’t pass a background check can’t go around the background check process and buy a gun anyway. I leave it to the ATF or other agencies to figure out how to implement such a process, but that exception needs to be eliminated.
We also need to have a way to identify those people whose mental condition would make them a risk for violence such as we saw in Newtown, Aurora, or with the shooter who shot Gabrielle Gifford in Arizona. And we need to do this without infringing on the rights of law-abiding Americans who do not present any threat to our safety. This will require an expensive new and more comprehensive federal approach to mental health. That approach is long overdue, and not just because of the gun issue. We have a sizeable number of homeless people in our cities, many, if not most of whom, are the victims of moderate to severe mental health problems, some of whom are also involved in other kinds of crime. We are long overdue addressing those issues.
We also need to develop better protocols for gun storage, particularly where there are children in the home, and especially where a child has mental issues. A few years ago, when I was expecting a 12 and a 13 year old to come for an extended visit, I removed the actions from my handguns, and put those parts in my bank safety deposit box during their visit. As I expected, the boys found the frames of the guns, and I explained to them why they were apart. If a gun is kept for self-defense, and we have to acknowledge that we do have neighborhoods where break-ins are not uncommon and a person might have valid concerns about his or her own self protection, there needs to nevertheless be a way to secure the gun from children and thieves without making it rapidly unavailable to the owner in an emergency. I don’t know of any method to do that, but perhaps the NRA and anti-gun-violence advocates, working together, might come up with something.
One comparison that comes to my mind whenever I hear about more regulation on guns, is the automobile. We don’t have a Constitutional right to own cars, but here in the US, we still manage to kill thousands of people with cars. Since 1930, the number killed each year in or by automobiles has been over 30,000. The peak, in 1972, was over 54,000. It is now back down to around 32,000. Do we blame the fatalities on the cars, or the drivers? Did the reductions come from outlawing cars? No. We have made our highways safer, and improved the crash-worthiness of the cars themselves. Even so, we have cars now in use that are faster and more powerful, and surprisingly, more fuel-efficient than ever before. We build safety into our cars, without compromising their basic purposes.
So the bottom line here is that we are all in pain following the tragedy in Newtown. We all want to prevent any recurrence of this kind of event, anywhere. But the solution to this concern is not to impose more regulations on people who already are obeying the law and not part of the problem. We need to address the underlying causes of gun crime. Hopefully, this article will help those who are sincerely seeking solutions.
Michael Chenoweth
LTC, US Army, Retired
|