Since the devastating mass murder in Newtown, Conn., which took the lives of 26 people including 20 children, an estimated 1,502 more have died as a result of gun violence. This is the human cost of a weak national policy on gun control, policy that has been crippled by decades of lobbying by special interest groups like the National Rifle Association that claim to represent the interests of law abiding gun owners, in spite of the fact that a strong majority of armed Americans and NRA members support tougher gun control.
Proponents of weak gun control laws — otherwise known as pro-gun advocates — often cite the Second Amendment as a constitutional guarantee of their right to own firearms, as if the right were unconditional.
It’s not unconditional.
Just as an incitement to riot or “fighting words” are not protected under the First Amendment, the right of any American to own any sort of firearm isn’t protected by the Second. A convicted felon, in most cases, cannot walk into a gun store and buy an AK-47 (though depending on the state you live in, violent felons are more than able to get their hands on a gun). Likewise, a person with any history of violent crime or mental illness ought not possess a firearm of any kind.
This all seems like common sense, but for people on the fringes of either side of this highly politicized national debate, common sense is hard to come by.
The Second Amendment, when interpreted literally, comments only on the maintenance of a “well regulated militia.” A militia, in this context, is a formal paramilitary unit that responds to a chain of command for the purposes of defending the homeland. The Second Amendment does not comment on guns as tradition or lifestyle, nor does it constitutionally enshrine them.
So when we talk about a right to bear arms, that is not a free-for-all call to lock and load. It is conditional. The language of the Second Amendment itself is explicit and any broad interpretation of Second Amendment rights is just that: a broad interpretation.
Jan. 30 marked the first day of congressional hearings over the issue of gun control. Being considered are the measures proposed by President Obama, which include universal background checks that close the “gun show loophole” which allows individuals to legally purchase firearms at private gun events without undergoing background checks (the estimated number of gun shows held annually in the United States is between the range of 2,000 and 5,200).
The president also proposed the reinstatement of the 1994 assault weapons ban, which includes provisions like limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, banning the possession of armor piercing bullets by individuals who are neither members of the armed forces or law enforcement, and increasing criminal penalties for “straw purchasers” (people who pass background checks to illicitly purchase guns on behalf of persons who would otherwise fail to pass a background check).
These seem like sensible proposals, and as previously mentioned, a majority of Americans are in support of such measures. And yet, staunch pro-gun advocates will have none of it.
“Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals,” Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the NRA, testified before the panel. “Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families.”
LaPierre also endorsed the placement of armed guards in every school. Never mind that there was an armed guard present during the Columbine high school massacre of 1999, resulting in 13 deaths and 21 injuries, or that LaPierre’s proposal would cost an estimated $3.3 billion to implement.
Another bit of common sense: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Why spend $3.3 billion on confronting school shooters when we could be preventing the shooters from getting their hands on deadly weapons in the first place? Why not invest our resources into expanding mental healthcare (another one of Pres. Obama’s proposals)?
To drive a car, one must commonly earn a learner’s permit by completing a written test. Then, after the applicant has been given adequate instruction in actually driving a car they undergo a live performance test. These standards may vary by state, but they are ultimately administered by a central federal agency — the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Why must potential drivers undergo these trials of competence? Because cars can kill people. Cars are automated, mechanical devices — and the owners and operators of these vehicles must possess suitable training to operate their vehicles safely. This is in the interest not just of the individual who owns the car, but also in the interest of public safety.
Unlike cars, guns are designed to kill. That is their ultimate purpose and function. So why is it easier for an American to get their hands on an assault rifle than it is to get a driver’s license? Where’s the sense in that?
—
Apolitical is a blog that covers current events, politics and culture from a progressive perspective — bringing the world at large to the Malibubble, one post at a time.
