Few things set the United States apart from other nations like the Second Amendment. We may search high and low among other industrialized nations and not find anything in any other constitution that has had as many judicial interpretations guaranteeing any citizen the inalienable right to arm themselves with weapons intended for use only in armed military conflict. In the process of doing so we may also notice that some of these nations had one mass shooting with military style or other such firearms in a school or other such venue after which immediate legislative action was taken and a policy implemented to make it exceedingly difficult for a repeat of such a crime. We may also notice, low and behold, that there were no more such mass shootings in these countries. One other item of note that sets the U.S. apart from other nations is the frequency in which mass shootings occur on American soil. Given that no real action to address the root of the matter has ever been undertaken in Congress, it is a number that has only continued to grow. Most pro-Second Amendment advocates be they in elected office or a voter who elected them usually exude what has become their standard reaction to mass shootings, that being a mix of indignation at the shooter and a litany of ‘thoughts and prayers’ for the victims. Any attempted foray into discussion about limiting access to the criminal shooter’s implement by whatever means is met with a solid wall of defense of the citizen’s right to keep and to bear arms. This inaction in the face of a persisting problem is costing the United States a tarnished reputation. Tolerating dead children shot by assault weapons in the name of an anachronistic “right” is tarring all America as a land of misplaced values.
Before we go any further, I must express my views on the Second Amendment and firearms in general. Being a military retiree, I swore an oath multiple times throughout my career to specifically, “Support the Constitution of the United States and to defend it against all enemies both foreign and domestic.” Having done so, the ideals of the nation it embodies is something I have come to hold as sacrosanct. I still harbor a deep respect for the document I swore to uphold and defend. I also long since understood that the Bill of Rights and the list of amendments following neither begins nor ends with the second one.
During my service in the U.S. Navy, I came to understand and respect the fact that proficiency with firearms is a requirement that goes with the territory of being an active duty military member. Such mandatory proficiency also applies to those serving in paramilitary organizations such as police forces, sheriff’s departments and all other law enforcement agencies. All persons serving is these organizations undergo ample amount of training in responsible use and care of firearms. Yours Truly was even once called upon to qualify with the M1911 .45 caliber Automatic Colt Pistol:
Having managed to shoot enough holes in a paper target to qualify for a Pistol Marksman ribbon, my proficiency with a service sidearm is a matter of my official military record. As it is duly noted on my DD-214, the accompanying decoration can be seen on the far right of the bottom row of my ribbon cluster.
A few short years after that pistol qualification I was consumed by the harsh reality of a real-life incident involving a gunshot which abruptly transformed my life into shambles. I learned the hard way through someone else’s action that just because I opted to have nothing to do with guns that the sentiment is not reciprocal. Long story short: You don’t have to be the one who gets shot or the one who pulls the trigger to have your life destroyed by a firearm. This may have little to do with the problems and issues at hand, but this is where my anti-firearm sentiments come from.
The callousness of pro-gun advocates in the face of the phenomenon of mass shootings has long since reached a point of unacceptability especially when it comes to public policy. It has become a worn out routine after each tragedy involving an assault weapon for high profile Second Amendment proponents to offer up an obligatory volley of “thoughts and prayers” for the victims. After their due deference to the dead and wounded dissipates, they invariably assume a Pitbull-like goal line defense in preparation to thwart any idea or suggestion that may remotely threaten their precious right to purchase and possess military grade weapons. Their fear of the “slippery slope” of losing legal access to the most lethal manufactured and marketed killing implements will lead to confiscation of all firearms is always front and center. Although we should not expect drastic changes, the policy debate over what constitutes “extreme” limits on the right to bear arms must reach a workable consensus to positively affect the status quo. There have been workable legislated policy solutions in the past. Reviews on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban which was rescinded after being in effect for ten years are mixed based on political stripe of the reviewer. Regardless, it is difficult to argue that mass shootings were few and far between when the ban was in effect even despite the Columbine massacre of 1999.
For all the highly vocal promotion of gun sales, open-carry laws and other ad nauseum brouhaha over the citizen’s RIGHT to bear arms, there is rarely mention of any RESPONSIBILITY associated with doing so. Most would agree that any member of a “well-regulated militia” does not shoot school children, church congregations, physicians and their staff or patients, concert goers or supermarket patrons. The perpetrators in most of the mass shootings since 2004 have been enabled by legislation which was heavily influenced and promoted by multiple pro-gun special interest groups, many of which are affiliated with the National Rifle Association. Should anyone wish to take issue with “tyranny of the minority,” then look no further than the firearms lobby. Please understand that the NRA has a current membership strength of a paltry 5.5 million and their ironclad grip on Congress is having serious repercussions for the rest of us. It would be naive to believe that eliminating all firearms would cease making us all targets of an undesirable individual with an ax to grind or a frustrated, repressed or depressed soul whose momentary lapse of reason involves settling a score either actual or perceived with a gun. However, it would be entirely within the bounds of reason to relegate all weapons of war such as assault rifles to limited access by only uniformed persons on active duty who have been duly trained in their use. The nastiest blight on the character of the American nation is the corruption of the original intent of an amendment which over time has evolved into a universally accepted unfettered right with no real responsibility. Too many have come to believe their right to bear arms supersedes any other’s right to safety and freedom from gun violence. It is truly a twisted norm that so many are willing to tolerate an ever-increasing body count of dead, maimed and terrorized citizens, particularly children, in exchange for owning the firepower of a Marine Corps fireteam. This is how it will be though until enough of us demand our right to not get shot. It may well involve a rewriting of the U.S. Constitution. The fraudulent nature of the current interpretation of the Second Amendment has been articulated by far better than humble Yours Truly. Here is what a stalwart conservative Republican former Supreme Court Chief Justice had to say about the right to bear arms as described in the U.S. Constitution in a 1991 interview:
“This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word FRAUD, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
Warren Burger on the 2nd Amendment
All rights have their limits. One right should not receive special exemption especially when so many of its proponents cannot provide a suitable reason why they need a military arsenal other than the fact it is their “right.” The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did not stop all shootings. It did however prevent more than not doing anything about the problem is in 2022. It is my sincere hope that it doesn’t take a violent tragedy caused by a firearm in the wrong hands to reach the critical mass those in power need for change to occur. It is not difficult to take a reasoned first step, it is just long overdue. The longer we wait, the more innocent people will die needlessly. Inaction is no longer a viable option. Every law-abiding citizen has the inalienable right to not get shot. It simply needs to be promoted and asserted with as much zeal and vigor as has the right to bear arms.
Somewhere in the depths of a family cedar chest is my well-used and worn copy of “Rights and Responsibilities” that students attending Alexander Hamilton Junior High in Tulsa in 1971 read and discussed throughout the first two months of my seventh grade academic year. This was done, I understood, because TPS had started integration and busing students, and we all needed ground rules. Some of my fellow classmates were rightfully angry about being forced to attend what was not their neighborhood school. I learned the concept of responsibility, paired with my rights, as a tool to create a more reasonable co-existence with people who did not want to be in the situation we were in. Now, some, not all, but some dangerously armed individuals see only their rights, and not my right not to get shot and their responsibility to keep the peace.. I lost my orthopedic doctor in the St. Francis Hospital shooting because some fellow American with a possible drug dependency and some dangerous weapons decided he had a right to kill his spine surgeon because he wanted more pain medicine than was deemed safe. Nothing will help to undo the pain and trauma he caused because he could get his hands on a deadly weapon. This tragic story has played too many times in the US. We have the responsibility to do all that we can to keep such tragedy from ever happening again.
“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.”
But is it? Is “a well regulated Militia” actually necessary to the security of this country? Okay, well if that’s true, then where is ours? Where is the “well-regulated” Militia for say, the State of Oklahoma or the State of Indiana? Or any other of the 50 States, for that matter?
There isn’t any State Militia, of course – not a single one, in any of the States. Each one has a National Guard, and the federal government maintains an Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, & Marine Corps – but there is no “US Militia”, well-regulated or otherwise.
And therefore, plain old ordinary common sense should tell anyone that the 2nd Amendment, as it is written, IS OBSOLETE. Why? Because a “well regulated Militia” is plainly NOT NECESSARY to the security of a free State. That’s why we have a National Guard, and a federal military service establishment which are ALL VERY WELL-REGULATED & fully armed.
And that being the case, allowing any Tom, Dick & Hairy to run around with any automatic weapons of WAR they choose to carry is not only STUPID, it is INSANITY.
Which sums up the present American situation, vis-a-vis firearms, succinctly & completely.
“A well-regulated militia” became obsolete with the passage of the National Defense Act of 1920, which established the National Guard. I agree with the former Chief Justice Warren Burger. It is a HUGE fraud that has been perpetrated on the American public.
Roger that… the whole idea that ‘citizen soldiers’ are necessary to protect the country against US troops is ludicrous, on it’s face. The only people buying into that nonsense are “Confederate – wannabes”, still re-fighting the Civil War… and that makes them nothing but TRAITORS to a democratic Republic, imho.