I think we need to have a discussion. Not about guns vs. no guns, but about where we draw the line. We already have a some lines drawn, but it’s clear by now that they are not drawn in a good place. It’s hard to feel safe anywhere in America anymore. Because of where we draw the line on guns.
I once met an exchange student from Europe who told me that her parents’ biggest fear in sending her to the USA for study was the fear that she might be shot and killed by a gun. They knew she was safe at home, but they were worried about her here. Such was their impression of our United States.
I think we need to have a discussion, though I know there are many people who don’t even want to talk about it. I know we’re never going to create a situation where we can guarantee safety for all, at all times. The cat is already out of the bag; there are so many guns, of so many kinds, already out there. But doesn’t it make sense that we should try to make things better than they are? Can’t we at least talk about it?
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.
“Arms” is a broad category, and I wonder if the writers of the text of the second amendment had any way of imagining the technologically advanced Arms that are now available, sold today by large, wealthy, powerful companies. And what words might they have written had they witnessed the havoc wreaked by one individual shooter at a music festival in Las Vegas this week?
And did the writers of the amendment imagine that children would be shooting other children with easily accessible arms in our too-numerous school shootings? They had the foresight to suggest that any Militia ought to be well regulated. Does it not make sense that, had they known such things could exist, they would have written that massively dangerous weapons ought to be “well regulated” too, in the name of “the security of a free State”?
I believe that most people who advocate for gun safety believe that gun ownership ought to be legal. I believe most people believe in your right to own your hunting rifle, or your handgun, or your shotgun. But was the amendment language, crafted over 200 years ago, intended to allow a single individual to amass an arsenal of weapons capable of killing and injuring over 500 people in a matter of minutes?
One would hope that the large national organization originally created to promote safe and respectful use of firearms and firearm sports would be leading the way on this discussion. I’ve personally lost hope that that organization cares.
So maybe we can have the discussion. Maybe some of our political representatives will lay down their party hats for a bit and join in. I don’t want to worry all the time that my children, my grandchildren, my friends, my neighbors or myself might be mowed down by a weapon of war owned by an unwell or antisocial individual.
If we can have our discussion, I don’t think that we will ever completely solve the problem. But maybe we can move the line on how our second amendment is implemented to a better, safer place, for “the security of a free State”.
Mike McCornack
October 3, 2017