In December 2012, I wrote an entry to this blog called "Newtown and the Constitution". Now, almost three years later, I find myself experiencing the same emotions, over and over again. I could write the article with "Chattanooga" or "Charleston" or "Texas" or...you get the idea.
We can wait no longer. If the second amendment is the major obstacle to taking some kind of action to restrict gun ownership, then we need to revisit that amendment.
I'll repeat my argument from earlier. The amendment process was created so that the constitution could reflect the changing moral vision of the country in response to changes in the world around us. So former slaves became citizens, women were given (almost) full rights as citizens, and individuals born on US soil were granted citizenship. Alcohol was banned; then alcohol was made legal.
Our moral vision and the world were very different in 1781. We had a very primitive technology available to us in firearms. Whether rifle or pistol, "flintlock" was state of the art. It allowed the shooter to discharge one shot at a time, before rearming the mechanism, during which time, the shooter could be disarmed. Furthermore, the second amendment specifically couches the right to bear arms in the context of maintaining a militia.
All of that has changed. The technology grew through repeater rifles and revolvers to (semi) automatic pistols and rifles with high capacity magazines and autoloaders. A person with such a weapon is very dangerous, indeed.
As for a militia, hasn't that long been resolved by the armed forces and national guard?
Furthermore, our understanding of mental illness, its various conditions and their causes, has given us tools for identifying individuals who clearly should not have the "right to bear arms".
I was flabbergasted recently when I learned, following the Oregon shooting, that there are some 300,000,000 guns owned by people in this country alone. I suspect some of them have arsenals to make up for the number of people that I know that don't own a single gun. Am I alone or does it seem as though that number constitutes a clear and present danger to the rest of us?
I wish I knew the answer. I don't agree with people who use their guns for hunting. But I'll grant them their legitimacy. As for keeping a gun for self-defense, I'm not sure a gun will actually offer protection from someone who knows what he is doing and is determined to do harm.
I lean toward complete disarmament of the citizenry. I think that is the only way to eliminate the problem. But I know that's not going to happen, probably not in my lifetime.
