The murder of 20 children and six other innocent Americans in Newtown, Connecticut is one of the most emotive events in the U.S.A.’s lamentable catalogue of mass shootings. The age of the victims and the scale of the horror means that rational debate may have to wait. When it does come, there may be time for a change in what seems to have become an argument without a conclusion. It is time that this discussion changes tack completely. Without wishing to in any way denigrate Friday’s events, what is needed is not a detailed dissection of the motivations of a clearly deeply troubled individual. It is vital that the central constitutional debate is brought to the fore.
Thankfully, each time something as sickening as this happens the voices calling for reform of gun control grow louder. What is so frustrating and saddening is the attitude and rhetoric of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Each time, the National Rifle Association (NRA) rallies behind the familiar cry of ‘the constitutional right to bear arms.’ Part of the constitution is inscribed above the door of the NRA headquarters in Washington. It is preceded by an ellipsis. The text omitted is the first part of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which in full reads:
“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.”
It is part of the Bill of Rights, which was adopted 221 years ago to the day, December 15 1791. The date explains why it exists at all. The Declaration of Independence had been signed only 15 years previously and the Revolutionary Wars had been over for barely a decade. The “well regulated militia” that the Constitution called for was seen as vital to a young nation without a standing army. The main reasons given were to protect the people from tyrannical government and from foreign invasion.
Evidently the piety of the gun lobby in defending their ‘constitutional right’ could not be more misplaced. They call passionately on a law that has no place in modern society. It is clear that taken in context this right is collective and does not pertain to the possession of guns by individuals. That is to say that it is conditional upon the existence of a “well regulated militia,” “regulated” being taken to mean ‘disciplined’ and ‘trained’. Bewilderingly, the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled otherwise, despite their illogical position.
What legitimate uses are there for guns in modern society, especially automatic weapons such as those used during the Aurora shootings earlier this year? Hunting is a national pastime in the United States so guns could most likely never be completely outlawed, but the keeping of firearms for ‘self defence’ does not stand up, and can lead to tragic cases such as that of Trayvon Martin, also this year.
In the US, over 84 people are killed each day with guns and more than double this number injured. Over half of these incidents happen within families or groups of friends and occur within the home. Take the handguns out of people’s homes and such tragic events will inevitably fall.
This is damning for the NRA’s long-time slogan that ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’ Of course guns kill people, and their persistent defence of ‘the right to bear arms’ is not just a perversion of the constitution they so revere. All too often the consequences of their continued obstruction of reform are heartbreakingly lethal.
But I like my arms :(
Instead of banning guns, lets just ban murder, seeing as outlawing things, according to you, seems to be 100% effective.
Guess what, especially in the US, as it is not an island nation and shares a border with drug-war ridden south america, outlawing guns will only punish law-abiding citizens. Every day criminals are killed in self-defence by American citizens, and this includes George Zimmerman by the way, who will almost certainly be found not guilty of murdering the aggressor Trayvon Martin. Rifles serve no purpose in modern day America? Tell that to the Korean store owners during the LA Riots who, abandoned by the police, defended their property against looters.
So not only is your polemic unlikely to prevent further mass shootings, as most weapons used in these situations are not legally acquired, but will leave millions of law abiding citizens defenceless against criminals who obviously have zero qualms illegally obtaining weapons.
Arnie, you are wrong guns are used to commit more murders in the states than in self defense, more people have been killed by their own gun than in self defense, the Columbine school had armed policeman outside didn’t stop it. The entire self defense argument is BS and it is the exception rather than the rule that guns aid in self defense. Secondly if you make guns illegal they are much harder to get hold of so you are less likely to see low level criminals having them reducing the likely hood of a shooting happening. Secondly less criminals well be willing to use a gun as it would result in a greater sentence than if they didn’t. Therefore they will be limited to high level crime which generally is high profit making so attempts to avoid violence at all costs in countries such as America as it will lead to a crack down on them and a loss of profits.
The Korean store point, maybe as the report into the LA police has shown America should invest more into an effective police force not paramilitary organization, which was ineffective in policing and maintaining safety in the communities they were in. If this had been done the Koreans would have no need for guns. So it is a totally irrelevant point to gun control and more about effective policing within communities.
On the point about Constitutional right to bear arms it probably does give the individual a right to bear arms, as there is a gramatically different version which was passed by congress which has a come between bear arms and shall not be infringed. This would suggest that what is called the unorganized milita (all males between 17-45, and up to 64 for those with military experience) is being referenced in the second part, while the first part references the organized militia or what is now called the federal national guard and the individual states national guards. However considering the strength of the united states, and the organized militias the second part of this amendment is now void. A better argument therefore would be the removal of this section while increasing the size and scope of state militias so all those who say it is an attempt to remove constitutional rights can be re-assured that if their constitution really is being attacked and it is an attempt at the formation of a unitary state, rather than a federal or confederate state that their individual state would have the ability to defend itself and it’s constitutional rights.
tl;dnr
guns laws in America need a major revamp as they are based on ideas that are no longer relevant. At the same time the self defense argument is not true and cases where it has been successful are the exception and not the rule.