The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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."
Because our founding fathers chose vague language and some suspect punctuation, the exact meaning has been up for debate and interpretation for years. The word "arms" is not precise. Knives are arms, swords are arms, slingshots are arms, spears are arms, etc. At the time the second amendment was written, state of the art "arms" consisted of muskets, single shot pistols, and some cannons.
The NRA and those on the right think it means an absolute constitutional right to bear arms without any restrictions. Those on the left believe that some limits and restrictions are acceptable and necessary.
First of all, even the NRA thinks some restrictions are acceptable, they just don't admit it. Also, there are some gun control advocates who think all guns should be removed from society. The middle ground is usually the best option.
Don't think the NRA supports restrictions? The word arms in the amendment is very ambiguous. Does it mean any weapon, only weapons that can be carried by a person or just guns? Let's start with any weapon definition. If you assume that, then any person in the United States is allowed to own a nuclear weapon or a Howitzer cannon. How about only weapons that can be carried? Then grenade launchers and bazookas would be allowed. Only guns? First, you have to define a gun. Is it only a device that expels lead slugs? How about a laser gun? Even the NRA doesn't support the personal use of atomic bombs or Howitzers, or do they?
The most popular gun for terrorists is the AR-15 type rifle. It is readily available in gun shops all over the country. It is also one of the best selling rifles. Originally a military weapon that was slightly modified. Military rifles are designed to kill people, not Bambi's mother. It is light, relatively small and compact and deadly. Multi-round cartridge magazines are available. A shooter can kill dozens without reloading. Why does an average citizen need one of these? An aside, here in Texas an 18-year-old can buy an AR-15 but can't buy a handgun, you have to be 21 to do that.
The other problem is our Swiss cheese background check laws. A licensed gun shop must perform background checks but exhibitors at gun shows and private gun owners are not required to do so. Guess where a bad guy will go if he has a choice. Also, much of the information that would deny a person a gun is not passed on. This is especially true of mental health problems.
I am not under the illusion that stricter gun laws will eliminate killings in general or mass killings in particular. I am under the illusion that some changes may reduce the number and severity of them. I know the argument that guns don't kill people, people do. Yet, a guy with a semi-automatic weapon with a 30 round clip will more easily kill 49 people in a night club than a terrorist with a six-shooter or a musket.
The NRA thinks any changes in our gun laws will lead to the government seizing all guns. That is complete BS. Every freedom has some restrictions. Even our first amendment freedom of speech has some, you can't liable someone or incite a riot.
Let's try something different. Common sense compromise would be a nice start.
I have little hope that any change will come under our current divided government. If a mass killing of kids like at Sandy Hook or Parkland didn't change anything, why would the killing of LGBTs in Orlando or country music fans in Las Vegas or municipal workers in Virginia Beach even get a second glance?
It won't be long before we all wring our hands and shake our heads over the next tragedy. Our leaders will express condolences and ensure that their thoughts and prayers are with the victims and families. A thought or prayer apparently hasn't stopped the killings, at least not yet. Maybe it's time to try something else.
wjh
No comments:
Post a Comment