The first point that I want to make is that the Second Amendment to our Constitution is not as clear as people think it is. One of the things that I learned in an alleged Biblical research organization many years ago is that in order to fully understand the meaning of something that was written many years ago, you have to understand how words were used during that time. This not only applies to the literal meaning, dictionary definition, of words, but the colloquial usage and terms of art at the time. Often a term is so well understood by those in a certain milieu that it is never defined. We also have to contend with the changing situation as the decades and centuries go by. Citizens were not only allowed, but encouraged to own firearms in part because there was no standing army as we know it today. The defense of the nation was undertaken in large part by state militias that were made up of citizens who supplied their own weapons. But does this mean that the Second Amendment restricted gun ownership to state militias? Almost certainly not. Advocates on all sides in our arguments over guns believe that they have the one true interpretation of how the Second Amendment should be applied.
What is not arguable is that we have a problem in this country with acts of violence being committed by people with guns. Hardly a day goes by without someone opening fire in a church, or a school, or some other public place. What is the answer? I readily admit that I don't know what the answer is, however stubbornly refusing to include firearm regulation as part of the solution is shortsighted. Adamantly removing a whole class of possible remedies just doesn't make sense. What happens whenever any regulation of ownership, including background checks and waiting periods is proposed, the chicken littles of the NRA and their allies shout that the government is coming to take their guns, despite there never having been a serious effort to do so. The NRA has also successfully lobbied Congress so that any statistical research into gun violence that might conceivably aid in finding an answer has been prohibited. Information that might help us plot a course toward decreasing the needless deaths at the hands of individuals with guns can't be collected.
So what happens? A state government proposes several laws to regulate firearms. The public, including lobbying groups such as the NRA, have the opportunity to speak to their representatives and express their opinion. (In fact, the people of Virginia have already expressed their opinion by overwhelmingly voting for Democrats in the elections for governor and state legislators; Democrats who were very clear that gun regulation was high on their list of priorities.) In addition to any one-on-one meetings with legislators, advocates of unrestricted, unregulated, gun ownership flooded the state capitol area with heavily armed people who looked like they were going to war. At least one county Sheriff among the crowd announced that he would not enforce any gun regulations if passed, determining for himself that the laws, which had not even been debated, let alone passed, were unconstitutional. I thought we had courts and judges for that.
This is what I see as a major stumbling block in addressing violence by armed individuals: the unwillingness of some segments of the gun-owning population to even consider options that involve any mention of actual guns. If the high-powered lobbying paired with lucrative campaign donations wasn't enough, the now-common protest tactic of marching through the streets armed to the teeth. Now I'm not going to mock these people as "ammosexuals", or assume that none of them had ever served in the military, or belittle the appearance of the ones who appear to be in less than optimal physical shape, but I am going to opine that this type of demonstration is nothing more than an intimidation tactic.
The proliferation of mostly right-wing types to demonstrate carrying conspicuously displayed weapons is something that I find quite scary. We were lucky this week in Virginia in that there was no violence, despite the presence of right-wing groups other than just gun owners. Partly this was due to the lack of counter-protesters. I lived for a time in a small rural town. Gun racks in the back of pickups were not unusual and caused me no anxiety. However, back then if I had seem someone walking the streets of New York, or even Lincoln Nebraska with a military style weapon, or even an openly displayed handgun, I probably would have called the police and the police would have thanked me for it. In the 80's a heavily armed man in camouflage gear in the city streets would have alarmed any law enforcement officer, even if this person was acting within the law. Now, there is no way to know if the guy strolling around the grocery store with a sniper rifle is just "exercising his rights" or is about to become the newest mass murderer.
The NRA, as well as politicians on the right, have warped the discussion so that even considering that part of reducing gun violence involves the actual guns send many gun owners into a frenzy, sending people into the streets to intimidate those that disagree with them and refusing to obey the law. The answers are complex, but addressing the problem of gun violence without considering the actual guns is madness.
No comments:
Post a Comment