Miscellaneous: Mass School Shootings--Here We are Again

Personally, I believe the 2nd Amendment doesn't (and was never intended to) guarantee an unrestricted right to all citizens to own any kind of firearm. I believe the NRA and gun rights supporters have perverted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, but, let's set that aside for a moment. Let's assume it DOES guarantee that right. If it does, then, on the face of it, it imposes no restrictions on the kind of arms citizens are allowed to bear (throwing out the well-regulated militia idea as well, for the sake of argument and ignoring the fact that "bear arms" was never, until recently, understood to be the equivalent of "own a gun"). Logically, that means all US citizens have a constitutional right to own and use ANY kind of arms--simply, "to bear arms"; this is the NRA position. There seems to be a logical inconsistency here, though. Why stop at an AR-15 then? US citizens, by this interpretation have the right to own bazookas, cruise missiles, even ICBMs with nuclear warheads, if they can afford to buy such a thing. Further then, the authorities are failing to uphold the Constitution if they refuse citizens the right to buy nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, bazookas, machine guns--anything.

Crazy? Maybe, but even the Lapierres of the world seem to balk at claiming an individual's right to own an ICBM. To own a cruise missile maybe? Probably not. To own a bazooka? Maybe: I think there are probably a few gun rights activists who are angry they can't own a bazooka. So, even the staunchest gun advocates draw a line SOMEWHERE--somewhere just beyond a bazooka, perhaps. If so, that means even gun rights advocates recognize a class of weapons the ownership of which is NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment--that is, that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to own ANY kind of weapon, that there are exceptions, limits. This is the common ground between gun control advocates and gun rights advocates.

I have to wonder: on what basis do gun advocates concede (if they do) that the Constitution does not guarantee citizens the right to own certain kinds of arms--say, a cruise missile? Presumably they would acknowledge that it is because such a missile is a weapon of war designed solely for the purpose of killing many human beings quickly. That suggests an obvious question: is an AR-15 different? I don't think it is. Someone please explain to me how an AR-15 or similar small arm is different in that respect from a bazooka, a cruise missile, a nuclear ICBM?

But, of course, this is all nonsense. The Amendment was written to protect state militias (well-regulated state militias) from the potential threat of a tyrannical government wielding a standing army against the people, and, historically, "to bear arms" has almost always meant "military service," not "own a gun." The Second Amendment says nothing about a private right to own weapons, and virtually any child can see that a right to the possession of anything has no place trumping the right to live in safety and with piece of mind.  It's time to take back the 2nd Amendment.

Miscellaneous: Take Back the 2nd Amendment (December 22, 2012)

It seems to me that to take back the 2nd Amendment would be to restore its reading and interpretation to what it has been through most of US history--that the government shall not have the right to prohibit the creation and maintenance of a well-regulated militia. The current pro-gun, NRA-created and abetted view of the 2nd Amendment that claims all Americans have the right to own as many guns as they like and guns of any type whatsoever, regardless of their redundant lethality is recent and anomalous, as far as I can tell. With this in mind, I Googled the phrase "Take back the 2nd Amendment." Should I have been surprised to find a Facebook page with that name and that it's a page run by gun advocates? I'm baffled. What do they mean by taking back the 2nd Amendment, I wonder?

Miscellaneous: Yet Another Mass Shooting (December 15, 2012)

It is deeply disturbing, sad, and tragic that not two days after the mall shooting in Oregon, the nation--the world--is in mourning for 20 young children and six schoolteachers murdered with handguns in the United States, this time in Newtown, Connecticut. In addition, the shooter killed his own mother.

Enough is enough, isn't it? Let the rage lead to something this time. We are not impotent. Write to the president, your representatives, your senators. Make it clear that you want sensible gun control if that is what you want. It's what I want. There appears to be much support for arguments that point to a lack of adequate mental health services as a contributing factor in this and similar incidents--another area of policy that could use an overhaul.

Miscellaneous: "Typical for Mass Shooters" (December 12, 2012)

Yesterday, yet another killer armed with a semi-automatic weapon opened fire in a crowd, this time in a shopping mall in Portland, Oregon. He killed two people and wounded several others before killing himself. The shooter was 22 years old. How does a young man of 22--or of any age--get his hands on an assault rifle? It must be a fairly easy thing to do, which says something about our idiotic gun laws that no one wants to hear.

But we are used to such things by now. They have become positively normal. The tone of news reports about the incident is indicative. One report I read noted that the young man wore a ski mask and went on to quote former FBI agent (and ABC News contributor) Brad Garrett as saying "The shooter's mask is typical for mass shooters, who often dress up in costume or wear something other than their regular clothes when they open fire in public." Is it just me? Or is it not deeply depressing to hear a news commentator use the term "mass shooter" as if he thinks it a rather ordinary category of persons--like "golf player" or "gift shopper"? "Open fire in public"? It's what mass shooters do.

[Update: And today, December 14, a man armed with three guns walked into an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut and killed (besides himself) 20 young students and six staff members. Earlier in the day, he shot and killed his own mother. I know all the arguments, but it still seems to me that we REALLY need to do something about the availability of weapons of mass murder in this country.]

Miscellaneous: Another Shocking Gun Incident? (July 20, 2012)

Breaking news. July 19, 2012. Colorado gunman kills 12, wounds scores at Batman premiere. Nation shocked.

Nation shocked?

Really? I doubt it. Is this news depressing? Yes. Tragic? Yes. But will the Batman shooting really surprise anyone?

It doesn't surprise me that we've just suffered yet another mass shooting. It won't surprise me when those opposed to our moronic gun laws hope hopelessly yet again that this incident may lend momentum to their cause. It won't surprise me when the gun advocates bridle and moan and say in response that we need more firearms in the hands of more people--more guns so that a prepared and vigilant hero can stop cold the next rogue abuser of guns (remember, it is people that kill, not guns)--by slaying him before he can slay others. But where are these heroes? Where were they last night? They seem as real to me as the superheroes so popular in the movies today. They seem as real to me as Batman.

What's new?

[Update: August 5, 2012. It's been only a little more than a month since I wrote this. In that time, we've had another mass killing--at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, six dead. Shocked?]

[Update: Brookfield, Wisconsin, October 21, 2012. Four dead. No heroes to be found. Shocked?]

[Update: Portland, Oregon, December 11, 2012. Three dead at shopping mall, including shooter armed with automatic weapon. Shocked?]

[Update: Newtown, Connecticut, December 14, 2012. Gunman opens fire at elementary school, killing 20 children and six staff members and himself. Maybe this one really will shock us into some kind of action. It won't have been soon enough.]

[Update: Shooter in Blair, County, Pennsylvania, near Altoona, December 21, 2012, kills three on a rural road. The shooter is killed by state troopers. At least five others wounded. Shocked?]

[Update: Shooter in Webster, New York, December 23, 2012, shoots and kills two firefighters and wounds two others after apparently setting fires to lure his victims in. Shocked?]

[Update: January 20, 2013--Gunman in Albequerque, New Mexico kills five with an AR-15, the same gun used to kill 27 in Newtown, Connecticut. Shocked? Happy New Year.]

And on, and on, and on.....