Second Amendment Conundrum(s)...in the plural
There are times when I wonder what's the matter with some people?
Not too long after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, an OpEd was published accusing then President Obama and Francine Wheeler of reaching a new low, as he put it. The link provided here is to an excerpt from the original OpEd, and excludes the worst of it. And, for those who may not remember, Francine Wheeler's child was one of the murder victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Unfortunately for me, I saw the original OpEd. That's all I'm going to say about that. The author had this to say about Francine Wheeler, a still grieving parent whose child was murdered along with 19 other children and 6 adults:
"You and the rest of your ilk are unfit as parents and unfit as citizens."
Compassion and empathy do not appear to be the author's strong suit. And, please remember, this is a much toned down version of what he originally said.
Here's another one for your viewing pleasure: Walking in the Shoes of Our Slain Children. This one is from February 18, 2013 and talks about Tom Mauser whose Son, Daniel, was murdered at Columbine High School in that massacre. Only this article is empathetic to Tom Mauser, not the opposite.
Two totally opposite perspectives on the debate over gun violence prevention and safety.
The right to keep and bear arms is arguably (more on that later) guaranteed by the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, a document many of us consider to be a sacrosanct document. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is contained in the Declaration of Independence, also a document many of us consider to be a sacrosanct document albeit with no legal standing. Are these two points mutually exclusive. To some, they are. To others, they are not. That is a conundrum that has been an ongoing argument/debate for a very long time.
According to MerriamWebster, conundrum is defined as: "an intricate and difficult problem". Most all dictionary websites I researched said pretty much the same thing. Ergo, the Second Amendment, and any interpretation of same, is, by the very nature of the language used by our venerable Founding Fathers, confusing and a difficult problem.
Two totally opposite perspectives on the debate over gun violence prevention and safety.
Has anything really changed in the interim since the Sandy Hook massacre? For that matter, has anything really changed since the Columbine massacre?
Has vitriolic rhetoric on both sides of the gun violence prevention issue changed? Better? Worse?
Who's right? Who's wrong? Why does there have to be a right or a wrong anyway?
Where am I going with all this?
Where am I going with all this?
Basically I'm trying to make the point that some will say a person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is trumped by a person's right to keep and bear arms, and others will say the exact opposite...that a person's right to keep and bear arms is trumped by a person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The right to keep and bear arms is arguably (more on that later) guaranteed by the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, a document many of us consider to be a sacrosanct document. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is contained in the Declaration of Independence, also a document many of us consider to be a sacrosanct document albeit with no legal standing. Are these two points mutually exclusive. To some, they are. To others, they are not. That is a conundrum that has been an ongoing argument/debate for a very long time.
According to MerriamWebster, conundrum is defined as: "an intricate and difficult problem". Most all dictionary websites I researched said pretty much the same thing. Ergo, the Second Amendment, and any interpretation of same, is, by the very nature of the language used by our venerable Founding Fathers, confusing and a difficult problem.
So, where, then, do we draw the line on our own interpretations?
Let's arm those students, too, while we're at it. Why, if some of those kids at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Parkland, and too many others to mention, had been armed, they'd have taken out those scumbags in a heartbeat, right? While this article is also one from 2013 and the study cited therein doesn't specifically zero in on schools, it did state:
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.
Think about that. These are immortal words enshrined in our Bill of Rights as are nine other amendments. All are equally important. All are inter-dependent upon each other in some way, shape, or form. So, why does, or should, this one, single, amendment get so much more attention than the others? That, my friends, is another of the conundrums we must address.
So, what are some of the other conundrums of the Second Amendment? They are many. No other amendment in the Bill of Rights uses language quite like that of the Second Amendment. A search of the Internet titled "2nd Amendment Conundrum" resulted in hundreds of thousands of hits. Here are three I chose to help illustrate this posit:
A Constitutional Conundrum of Second Amendment Commas?
Commas? I mean, really? Is this what it might ultimately boil down to?
Is it a Fourth Amendment Exigent Circumstance to Keep a Legal Firearm in Your Home?
This one deals with 'no-knock entry'. We've seen repeated instances of no-knock raids in which innocent lives have been taken as a result of misinformation given to police by informants. We've also seen repeated instances of homes being raided by police and homeowners therein shot by those police while those homeowners, some of whom had guns, are trying to defend themselves.
The Commonplace Second Amendment?
Think about that. These are immortal words enshrined in our Bill of Rights as are nine other amendments. All are equally important. All are inter-dependent upon each other in some way, shape, or form. So, why does, or should, this one, single, amendment get so much more attention than the others? That, my friends, is another of the conundrums we must address.
So, what are some of the other conundrums of the Second Amendment? They are many. No other amendment in the Bill of Rights uses language quite like that of the Second Amendment. A search of the Internet titled "2nd Amendment Conundrum" resulted in hundreds of thousands of hits. Here are three I chose to help illustrate this posit:
A Constitutional Conundrum of Second Amendment Commas?
Commas? I mean, really? Is this what it might ultimately boil down to?
Is it a Fourth Amendment Exigent Circumstance to Keep a Legal Firearm in Your Home?
This one deals with 'no-knock entry'. We've seen repeated instances of no-knock raids in which innocent lives have been taken as a result of misinformation given to police by informants. We've also seen repeated instances of homes being raided by police and homeowners therein shot by those police while those homeowners, some of whom had guns, are trying to defend themselves.
The Commonplace Second Amendment?
This last one is particularly informative from a perspective of breaking the Second Amendment into its two components:
Pretty simple and straightforward, eh? Well, if that were the case, we wouldn't still be seeing interpretations of, and judicial rulings on, this Amendment even today. Nor would we be having this discussion/debate.
Nor would we continue to see the animosity, the vitriol, the downright hateful language some continue to use to defend their own interpretations of this Amendment. The "I'm right, and you're stupid" attitude on both sides of this issue is certainly alive and well in this day and age, that's for sure!
In the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Majority Opinion: DC vs Heller, even Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion states: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
There's a whole lot more to the Majority Opinion than this, so I recognize this could be interpreted as cherry picking. However, the fact this is even in there leads me to believe the debate over how far this ruling goes to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms is still very much an open ended ruling...hence the conundrum continues.
- A "Justification Clause" or "Statement of Purpose"; and,
- An "Operative Clause" or "Guarantee of a right to bear arms".
Pretty simple and straightforward, eh? Well, if that were the case, we wouldn't still be seeing interpretations of, and judicial rulings on, this Amendment even today. Nor would we be having this discussion/debate.
Nor would we continue to see the animosity, the vitriol, the downright hateful language some continue to use to defend their own interpretations of this Amendment. The "I'm right, and you're stupid" attitude on both sides of this issue is certainly alive and well in this day and age, that's for sure!
In the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Majority Opinion: DC vs Heller, even Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion states: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
There's a whole lot more to the Majority Opinion than this, so I recognize this could be interpreted as cherry picking. However, the fact this is even in there leads me to believe the debate over how far this ruling goes to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms is still very much an open ended ruling...hence the conundrum continues.
And then there are these arguments:
- "We must take the emotion out of the gun violence prevention debate."
- "New gun violence prevention legislation is a knee jerk reaction to a very complex problem."
- "We need to slow down so as to not pass gun violence prevention legislation that may have unintended consequences later on."
And then, there are the good old National Rifle Association conundrums to consider:
Let's arm everyone, shall we. That'll fix this problem, right? Teachers, administrators, maintenance staff, bus drivers. Shoppers in the mall. Movie theater goers. Workers in offices, factories, retail outlets. Churches. Courts. Public buildings. Day care centers. How about Congresspeople, themselves? Yep, that should do it! No checking your weapons at the edge of our towns. No Siree. We aren't Dodge City, Kansas or Tombstone, Arizona, so you can expect to see us packing heat anywhere and everywhere we go. Yes, Siree!
Let's arm those students, too, while we're at it. Why, if some of those kids at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Parkland, and too many others to mention, had been armed, they'd have taken out those scumbags in a heartbeat, right? While this article is also one from 2013 and the study cited therein doesn't specifically zero in on schools, it did state:
Even more interesting is what the research didn’t find. “There was an expectation that we should surely find a protective value,” the study’s lead researcher Charles Branas, of the University of Pennsylvania, says. But having a gun, he says, “on average was found not to be protective in assaults.” This is the conclusion written in the study: “Although successful defensive gun uses can and do occur, the findings of this study do not support the perception that such successes are likely.”
A few more NRA conundrums for your consideration:
Hell, let's do away with all those pesky gun free zones while we're at it.
After all, they're just magnets for those wishing to do harm anyway, right?
Can't even bring myself to talk about this one - conjures images of Charlton Heston with musket overhead at the NRA National Convention in North Carolina one year after the Columbine massacre.
Background checks wouldn't have prevented what happened at Newtown.
This one is pretty much ongoing in that it's a common refrain after virtually every mass shooting. Thing is, though, required background checks are codified law. Problem is, background check codified law is inconsistently used/enforced.
That being said, it's also critical for everyone to understand that a law, any law, is a code of conduct. Laws are, need I repeat it one more time, codes of conduct! That means that laws cannot prevent anything. They can help deter. They cannot prevent.
It's simply a statement of fact that little has been done in the gun violence prevention arena since well before the massacre at Columbine High School, my own bellwether mark for such things. That's not to say that nothing has been done. It has. It's just that not enough has been done to address the ongoing, and some would argue worsening, gun violence epidemic in our country.
So, where does all of this leave us? Well, a friend on Facebook (copied and pasted here with his permission) posted the following on his page:
Do it yourself gun control.
OK, the professionals failed me. Congress was unable to pass even a watered down background check bill much less any real gun control laws. Even a class full of first graders getting slaughtered at school by a previously law abiding citizen using an arsenal bought by his gun nut mother for “self-protection” did not stimulate reason in congress. Greed wins again. I’m not really surprised, it is a fact of life in a consumer based society.
So I’ll just do it myself. I’ll take actions over what I can control to make the world a safer place. This is what I have done since Newtown.
Stopped supporting the NRA
Started supporting gun control and anti-violence groups with money and time.
Sawed up and discarded all my high capacity magazines. 10 rounds is plenty.
Stopped using Enterprise Rental Cars because they offer discounts to NRA members.
Purchased “rubber bullets” (known as less than lethal ammo) for my home defense shotgun. If I do have to shoot someone, I prefer not to kill them.
Permanently disabled all my curio and relic guns (stuff my grandfather gave me). If stolen from me they can do no harm.
Bought a better safe for storage of my few remaining guns.
Disposed of excess ammo.
Vowed to buy no new guns. I can get by with what I have. Firearms proliferation must end.
Organized a community project with at risk youth. (We painted up an old abandoned house, I used the time to talk to them about tolerance and peace and what to do if you find a gun.)
Started doing Yoga. I am the worst Yoga student ever, but my teacher is patient and kind. Yoga teaches peace and tolerance. We could all use some of that.
Dumped friends that say “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” and/or other moronic phrases. (Yep, that’s why I have not called you back to answer why you were blocked on my Facebook page)
Became a single issue voter. If you don’t support gun control you don’t get my vote. Period.
I know this won’t change the world or cure all violence. But it is a start. Please do your part. Don’t wait for greed to die. Don’t wait for more children to die. Do it now.
Thank You
Gary Denton
If our elected government officials, if our Supreme Court Justices, if our state legislatures, and anyone else cannot actually once and for all solve the Second Amendment conundrums we keep on seeing, perhaps it is, in fact, time for all of us to take matters into our own hands as Gary has done - to empower ourselves.
Perhaps it is also time for us to recognize and accept the fact we are ultimately the ones who are most responsible for the safety of ourselves, our families, our friends, our communities. I guess what that might ultimately look like will be couched in each individual's perception of whether a right to keep and bear arms or a person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness takes the highest priority.
My two cents.
* Comments on this blog are moderated.
No comments:
Post a Comment