This December will be the 5-year anniversary of the massacre of school children at Sandy Hook Elementary School; the toll was 20 6-to-7 year old children and 6 adults killed. During the 5 years since Sandy Hook, approximately 150,000 people in the United States died from gunshots - we average 30,000 per year. Since Sandy Hook, there have been 248 deaths in what have been labeled "mass shootings," a total of 29 such incidents, including the killings in Las Vegas last night.
Many of us, I would hope all rational Americans, were shocked beyond belief by the senseless murders of school children. Many of us, and again I would hope a majority of Americans, thought that certainly the Congress of the United States, or the Executive of our country would do something drastic to stop the carnage wrought by firearms. But nothing was done. Nothing was done after every mass shooting since. Nothing!
I sincerely believe that nothing will be done, again, following the largest mass murder in our modern history, the shootings in Las Vegas. The shooter had 20 rifles in his hotel room; many of them AR-15-type semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines. He had another 20 or so guns at his home. How can someone amass such a cache of lethal weapons? How can such a thing be legal? Is there no record of a single person purchasing so many weapons? These are, I know, naive questions in America.
In February, 2013 I posted on this blog about the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and my opinion that it needs to be repealed or amended in order to gain control of these lethal weapons.. Reading that post now, I can only shake my head in tremendous sorrow that I live in such a strange, dystopian world where lethal weapons are so widespread and easily obtained. I have absolutely no faith, again, that our elected representatives will do anything meaningful to control the sale and distribution of guns.
The Constitution of the United States is a remarkable document that has guided our country since its adoption. It is, however, an 18th century document that still contains ideas and sections based on 18th century knowledge, norms and aspirations. The Second Amendment is not usable today, in my opinion, because it uses language that is open to interpretation, and over the years the courts have made many interpretations. A basic fact today is that the current use of the Second Amendment, based on court rulings, is an outcome of the actions of the National Rifle Association. The NRA, over the course of decades, has lobbied Congress, paid scholars and lawyers to write legal studies and briefs, and without any doubt skewed the legal interpretation of the Second Amendment to what it is today. The result is hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries by guns over the past few decades; and it is getting worse.
In my post 4+ years ago, I argued that the only way to stop the carnage of gun deaths and injuries in America is to repeal or amend the Second Amendment. I still hold that opinion.
No politician today would dare support my proposal. Why? Are they so afraid of the NRA that they will allow the killings to go on and on and on? The answer to date has been yes.
I will send my proposal to my Senators and Congressman. I will send it to the other progressives in the Senate, such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. I will challenge them to stand up to the NRA. I will ask them if they truly believe that the NRA, and only the NRA has the best public relations people money can buy. Changing the Second Amendment would be a political battle unlike any other; but it should be fought, and could be won. As I stated above, I think most Americans understand the pain and suffering wrought by guns under our present laws. I think most Americans, given the choice of business as usual or a rational system of regulation, will choose the rational path. We have to try; the current situation is not acceptable.
------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: REPEAL OR AMEND IT
posted February 10, 2013 to readmyopinion.blogspot.com
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.
And there it is, one of the most poorly constructed popular sentences in the English language. There are two major camps in the interpretation of this amendment: 1) those who think that it gives every person in the United States a constitutional right to own and keep firearms (usually without any limitations); and 2) those who think that the Amendment means that people have a right to own weapons if they are part of a "well regulated militia."
I personally think that the Second Amendment should be repealed; this would make our national discussion of guns a lot more objective and reasonable. But I don't really think the amendment will ever be repealed, so I offer the following rewrite, to be done as an amendment to the Amendment.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall be maintained by the federal government. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, under a well-regulated set of laws and rules to protect the health and welfare of the people, shall not be infringed.
Can anyone seriously argue with that? My amendment to the Amendment allows the federal government to establish and maintain our armed forces (
armed). My amendment to the Amendment also gives people in the United States the right to keep and bear guns, but within a well-regulated system that is structured to protect people (including the gun owners).
Why is this so important? Simple answer: the staunch anti-regulation folks (the NRA, other gun organizations, self-proclaimed gun rights patriots, and etc.) use the Second Amendment as a crutch for their argument against gun regulation. Read any and every statement by the NRA and anti-regulation folks and you hear the words "second amendment," "constitutional rights," "free society" and similar. One example in the newspaper today is a statement by Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Association, commenting about a recent poll on gun regulation: "What isn't important to me is how many people have decided to give up their rights." In other words, he dismisses the results that show what percentage of people favor more strict regulation of guns, based on his "fact" that we all have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
If we pull the Second Amendment rug out from under these gun death deniers, they will be forced to talk about real issues, and will have a much more difficult time dodging the reality of gun murder and mayhem in this country.
My next task is to look at the best way to start a national petition drive in support of my amendment to the Amendment.
---
