“Guns don’t kill; people kill” is the mantra of the population for whom the “right to keep and bear arms” takes precedence over virtually all human life, which is really ironic, since the overlap with the “right-to-life” population would include most of both groups. The second amendment trumps right to life.
In my relatively
small field of vision, nobody disagrees with that mantra.
“Thoughts and
prayers” is the throw-away dismissal of the cult of the Second Amendment.
In my relatively
small field of vision, nobody agrees that that’s enough.
In my view there
are two factors that render the guns-don’t-kill mantra irrelevant and impotent.
First, there is no effort, nor is there any apparent intention, to do anything
to identify the people who do kill and restrict their access to guns.
Guns don’t kill;
however, the love of guns, and the parallel unwillingness to mitigate the unregulated and virtually total access
to guns by essentially anybody with the funds to do so is totally
irresponsible and uncaring; furthermore, it is undeniably the greatest single contributor
to the senseless mass slaughter of so many innocent and unsuspecting victims
and to the grief of their families.
The second factor
is the selective ignoring of the initial qualifying phrase of the second
amendment so that the second half, viz., “the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is the sole focus of interpretation. The
first half is totally ignored, even though numerous respected legal minds have
pointed out its qualifying impact on the amendment. Hence, “A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” is not considered an
important part of the amendment.
By Definition in 18th century syntax (1791,
when the second amendment was established) a militia consisted of live-at-home
civilians who went about their private and family affairs, and were not
billeted in an established military compound or assigned duties of a military
nature; nor were they issued uniforms or firearms or other military equipment. Training
was minimal at best. They were called up in emergencies, at which times they
provided their own firearms.
The necessity of a
“well-regulated militia” has long been supplanted by the establishment of a
full-time standing military consisting of Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps,
and Coast Guard. Supplemental units (Reserves and/or National Guard) are
subject to being called up and activated. Again, however, these supplemental
units, when activated, are billeted in a military compound and are issued all
necessary equipment, including firearms.
As defined and
understood in 1791, the United States has no militia nor any need of one;
therefore, it can be argued that the second amendment is archaic and has no
applicable base in the twenty-first century.
All that being
said, I have no desire to prohibit the possession of firearms by people who are
mentally and emotionally stable and are not prone to substance abuse or
irresponsible or impulsive behavior. Hunting, collecting, and competitive
shooting seem, to me, the only valid and reasonable use of firearms by
civilians.
Home security is a
popular justification for firearms; however, multiple statistics document that one
is more likely to be killed by natural disaster than by a home intruder or
personal attack; indeed, persons who keep firearms in their home are more
likely to die by gunfire than those who do not. In fact, the lesser-known,
private tragedies that occur in homes accounts for substantially more deaths
than do mass shootings.[1]
The “security of a free state” that made necessary the keeping and bearing of
arms in 1791 referred to a militia responding to a call to arms and engaging in
fixed battles against an opposing threat to national security.
Arming school
personnel has proven virtually useless in preventing school shootings, and even
has been counterproductive in some cases.[2]
Finally, I am
drawn to one word in the initial qualifying statement of the second amendment: “A
well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State…” My attention is drawn to the word, “necessary.” To what extent are guns
“necessary?” While it may seem an irrelevant question, especially to gun
enthusiasts, it does seem relevant to the interpretation of the amendment.
Nevertheless, while
I consider the second amendment as it is written to be basically
irrelevant to twenty-first century application, it’s here to stay. There’s
simply no way it will ever be rescinded or even amended.[3]
Until the
proponents of gun ownership (and that would include me; although I don’t own a
gun and don’t want one in my home) shift focus from the guns that don’t kill to
the people who do kill (for the benefit of those who are being killed), blood
will continue to run in our streets and in our school hallways.
That’s the way it
looks through the flawed glass that is my world view.
Together in the Walk
Jim
[1] One of may documentations of my
comment: Owning Guns Puts People in Your
Home at Greater Risk of Death | Time
[2] Again, one of many
documentations of my comment: Guns in Schools | School Safety Resource Center
(colorado.gov)
[3] There are two ways to rescind a
constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of congress
(which ain’t gonna’ happen!), and ratification by three-fourths of the states.
That means 13 states could defeat the motion to rescind. I can name twenty states
that would vote against rescission. The second way to rescind an amendment is
convene a constitutional convention, which would require two-thirds of the
states to call for one. The amendment is iron-clad safe.
