Wednesday night CNN had a townhall meeting, of sorts, with survivor victims of the Parkland, Fl school shooting and lawmakers and NRA representative Dana Loesch. It was a microcosm of every debate on gun issues. I will not go into that too deeply but many people operate on this issue from ignorance. When that happens what we talk past each other, we hear what we want to hear and the rhetoric gets ugly. The students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School are trying to tell us something, through tears, angry, and pain. CNN did them a disservice. We can't as well.
The gun debate is not new and has always been complicated. Gun ownership helped build the country and almost destroyed it. Guns are truly American, We live in a country with the right to own guns. The Supreme Court, in DC vs. Heller identified the right as an individual one when used for legal purposes including self-defense. This clarified the wording of the role of "well-regulated militia" in the second amendment saying one did not have to be part of one to have the right. However, that same decision however said it is Constitutional to put restrictions on where and what kind of gun one can own. Quoting the late Justice Anton Scalia writing for the majority: “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today.
So in the United States today the right of gun ownership can be mitigated by laws as long as owning a weapon for legal purposes is not eliminated. That is simple. Calls for full bans on all weapons are not helpful and would require getting rid of the 2nd amendment, some in the crowd at CNN seemed to applaud. But here is the thing, the 2nd amendment was never about hunting, nor really personal protection from criminal elements. No one in the 1780s would have thought to even consider those questionable. What it was about was the states having the ability to fend off a tyrannical central Federal government who were overreaching. The Civil War, in part, was predicted by the founders and because there has always been a tension of when are we 50 states and when are we one nation. The 2nd was designed to help the states beat back an unlawful attack on Americans' freedom. Banning all guns is a failed idea and should not be entertained and it fails to add to the conversation.
But also what doesn't help is those that argue any restriction on access to fire arms is a total ban or worse that someone is coming to their homes and taking there guns. To hear recent NRA messaging
you would think that there is a ready force in the government coming to take away all the guns and lock up people who believe in gun rights. They say we hate freedom. This is a failed conversation too and frankly insane.
Then why not outlaw specific firearms to keep that people less armed? The idea of banning assault weapons as they are called seems reasonable to many. We can ignore the extremes and work on that. But the fact that defining an assault weapon has proven difficult because the gun manufacturers know that there is a market to exploit and so change a bit of the weapon to work around any law. Besides, the reason is there is a market. There are plenty of Americans who not only want a gun for personal protection or hunting, which most people feel is fine, but because it is actually fun to fire skeet shoot, fire at a range and feel the power of a gun. That is why first-person shooter games are also popular. And in this country we have that right.
So the solution to this are difficult and can not be done with the posturing of politicians, town halls driven by anger and certainly not the crazy rhetoric of the far right and a President who blurts out thoughtless nonsense without thinking through the implications of the idea. Guns are part of our culture and while I am all for helping with a cultural change, that can not be done by laws and will fail if tried.
Let me be perfectly clear. The NRA does not have the interest of Americans' right at heart, nor do they care about gun owners and safety. They are lobbyists for the gun manufacturers. They have become the loudest voice for the biggest gun makers in this country. They have for decades spoken with a radical agenda and attacked the FBI and other law enforcement (before it was done by mainstream Republicans). In fact George H.W. Bush ended his relationship with the NRA over them calling the FBI Jack-booted thugs in the 90s. They do not speak for a majority of the gun owners nor mainstream America. But they are out front because they have power in Washington due to their deep deep pockets. We watched their national spokesperson snarl at kids who were trying to get their point across on the CNN program. She also lied about the NRA's position on various efforts to limit guns getting into the hands of the wrong people. And then the next day she claimed she claimed the mainstream media loves school shootings to because it is good for ratings. That is some high level chutzpah for someone who has used gun issues to make her career.
Guns are an emotional issue and when there is too much emotion there is room for ignorance to fill in the gaps. There are facts that need to be used when making decisions on guns and school and general community safety. There is a debate here, it isn't easy. So let's be clear about moving forward, the debate has to be from a position of knowledge and history.
So let's keep in mind:
1. The President doesn't think things through, his ideas are nonsense and should simply be ignored. Let's stop debating what he says. The man will not follow through and will change his mind if the right person gets in his ear.
2. The NRA speaks not for gun rights but gun makers. They are not part of the solution.
3. If your argument is that the 2nd amendment was written when muskets were state of the art that is not relevant to the discussion. It is like suggesting the 1st doesn't relate to the internet. It is a non-starter. Yes guns are more deadly but we can both keep the 2nd intact and restrict guns in many ways. Let's work on that.
4. It is dangerous to argue to ban all private gun ownership. Not only will that not be good giving the government too much power over the people, but it will also end any good conversations.
5. If you question is "why do you need a gun like that?" you aren't asking the right question.
The real question is where can be build roadblocks to keep guns out of the hands of people who want to do harm or don't have the capacity to fully understand what they are doing:
1. Comprehensive and fully funded background check system that includes people being treated for severe mental illness. I know there is a privacy concern here but we give up privacy all the time for purchases. This can be worked out over time.
2. Waiting periods for weapons like AR-15s. I am not a gun maven, but a semi-automatic weapon or any based on a military weapon designed to be used offensively should require a waiting period.
3. Training for weapons. The purchase of a weapon should require a training course of some kind. I don't think that is unreasonable. A weapon can create damage in the public sphere I think we have a responsibility to make sure the owner at least knows where the the rounds will go.
4. Severe penalties if your weapon is used in the commission of a crime. Meaning you have to be responsible for it. If stolen report immediately.
5. Add-ons to guns that make them shoot like automatic weapons (bump stocks etc.) should be banned and buy back programs should be put in place. If caught with one after two years of the ban in place there should be prison time.
Those are all ways we can slow down the violence that we have been visited by but it won't stop it.
What Parkland taught us was that we have a blind spot when it comes to certain people and weapons. Laws could have stopped the killer in Florida, if he had to be 21 to buy an AR-15 he wouldn't have it, if there was a way to take away his guns when he threatened a school shooting that could have helped, if the state and federal authorities had taken him seriously they could have intervened. But that didn't happen because I truly believe we don't see the very people who are threats as threats. So often we hear reports of problems that people saw and in this case reported. Yet nothing was done. We have to take this all seriously. I wonder, if after recent San Bernadino and the Pulse nightclub how the FBI, local law enforcement and the family he lived with would have reacted if his name was Ahmed.
I want laws to make it harder for some people to get access to any weapons, I want to outlaw devises that convert semi-automatic weapons, and there are probably some weapons that don't belong in the hands of private citizens. I want to live in a country where the freedoms that made us great are mitigated by the thoughtfulness that makes us continue to be so. I want the nonsense to stop, the shouting, the posturing and the downright disgusting nature of the rhetoric to stop. We are sick as a culture not because we have guns but because we refuse to speak openly and honestly about them. Because we are polarized and too many so-called leaders cannot be trusted. The children are screaming at us because that is all they think we can hear. Let's prove them wrong and listen, because under the tears, the anger and pain they do have a still small voice that is powerful. It is time to focus and just freaking listen.
The gun debate is not new and has always been complicated. Gun ownership helped build the country and almost destroyed it. Guns are truly American, We live in a country with the right to own guns. The Supreme Court, in DC vs. Heller identified the right as an individual one when used for legal purposes including self-defense. This clarified the wording of the role of "well-regulated militia" in the second amendment saying one did not have to be part of one to have the right. However, that same decision however said it is Constitutional to put restrictions on where and what kind of gun one can own. Quoting the late Justice Anton Scalia writing for the majority: “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today.
So in the United States today the right of gun ownership can be mitigated by laws as long as owning a weapon for legal purposes is not eliminated. That is simple. Calls for full bans on all weapons are not helpful and would require getting rid of the 2nd amendment, some in the crowd at CNN seemed to applaud. But here is the thing, the 2nd amendment was never about hunting, nor really personal protection from criminal elements. No one in the 1780s would have thought to even consider those questionable. What it was about was the states having the ability to fend off a tyrannical central Federal government who were overreaching. The Civil War, in part, was predicted by the founders and because there has always been a tension of when are we 50 states and when are we one nation. The 2nd was designed to help the states beat back an unlawful attack on Americans' freedom. Banning all guns is a failed idea and should not be entertained and it fails to add to the conversation.
But also what doesn't help is those that argue any restriction on access to fire arms is a total ban or worse that someone is coming to their homes and taking there guns. To hear recent NRA messaging
you would think that there is a ready force in the government coming to take away all the guns and lock up people who believe in gun rights. They say we hate freedom. This is a failed conversation too and frankly insane.
Then why not outlaw specific firearms to keep that people less armed? The idea of banning assault weapons as they are called seems reasonable to many. We can ignore the extremes and work on that. But the fact that defining an assault weapon has proven difficult because the gun manufacturers know that there is a market to exploit and so change a bit of the weapon to work around any law. Besides, the reason is there is a market. There are plenty of Americans who not only want a gun for personal protection or hunting, which most people feel is fine, but because it is actually fun to fire skeet shoot, fire at a range and feel the power of a gun. That is why first-person shooter games are also popular. And in this country we have that right.
So the solution to this are difficult and can not be done with the posturing of politicians, town halls driven by anger and certainly not the crazy rhetoric of the far right and a President who blurts out thoughtless nonsense without thinking through the implications of the idea. Guns are part of our culture and while I am all for helping with a cultural change, that can not be done by laws and will fail if tried.
Let me be perfectly clear. The NRA does not have the interest of Americans' right at heart, nor do they care about gun owners and safety. They are lobbyists for the gun manufacturers. They have become the loudest voice for the biggest gun makers in this country. They have for decades spoken with a radical agenda and attacked the FBI and other law enforcement (before it was done by mainstream Republicans). In fact George H.W. Bush ended his relationship with the NRA over them calling the FBI Jack-booted thugs in the 90s. They do not speak for a majority of the gun owners nor mainstream America. But they are out front because they have power in Washington due to their deep deep pockets. We watched their national spokesperson snarl at kids who were trying to get their point across on the CNN program. She also lied about the NRA's position on various efforts to limit guns getting into the hands of the wrong people. And then the next day she claimed she claimed the mainstream media loves school shootings to because it is good for ratings. That is some high level chutzpah for someone who has used gun issues to make her career.
Guns are an emotional issue and when there is too much emotion there is room for ignorance to fill in the gaps. There are facts that need to be used when making decisions on guns and school and general community safety. There is a debate here, it isn't easy. So let's be clear about moving forward, the debate has to be from a position of knowledge and history.
So let's keep in mind:
1. The President doesn't think things through, his ideas are nonsense and should simply be ignored. Let's stop debating what he says. The man will not follow through and will change his mind if the right person gets in his ear.
2. The NRA speaks not for gun rights but gun makers. They are not part of the solution.
3. If your argument is that the 2nd amendment was written when muskets were state of the art that is not relevant to the discussion. It is like suggesting the 1st doesn't relate to the internet. It is a non-starter. Yes guns are more deadly but we can both keep the 2nd intact and restrict guns in many ways. Let's work on that.
4. It is dangerous to argue to ban all private gun ownership. Not only will that not be good giving the government too much power over the people, but it will also end any good conversations.
5. If you question is "why do you need a gun like that?" you aren't asking the right question.
The real question is where can be build roadblocks to keep guns out of the hands of people who want to do harm or don't have the capacity to fully understand what they are doing:
1. Comprehensive and fully funded background check system that includes people being treated for severe mental illness. I know there is a privacy concern here but we give up privacy all the time for purchases. This can be worked out over time.
2. Waiting periods for weapons like AR-15s. I am not a gun maven, but a semi-automatic weapon or any based on a military weapon designed to be used offensively should require a waiting period.
3. Training for weapons. The purchase of a weapon should require a training course of some kind. I don't think that is unreasonable. A weapon can create damage in the public sphere I think we have a responsibility to make sure the owner at least knows where the the rounds will go.
4. Severe penalties if your weapon is used in the commission of a crime. Meaning you have to be responsible for it. If stolen report immediately.
5. Add-ons to guns that make them shoot like automatic weapons (bump stocks etc.) should be banned and buy back programs should be put in place. If caught with one after two years of the ban in place there should be prison time.
Those are all ways we can slow down the violence that we have been visited by but it won't stop it.
What Parkland taught us was that we have a blind spot when it comes to certain people and weapons. Laws could have stopped the killer in Florida, if he had to be 21 to buy an AR-15 he wouldn't have it, if there was a way to take away his guns when he threatened a school shooting that could have helped, if the state and federal authorities had taken him seriously they could have intervened. But that didn't happen because I truly believe we don't see the very people who are threats as threats. So often we hear reports of problems that people saw and in this case reported. Yet nothing was done. We have to take this all seriously. I wonder, if after recent San Bernadino and the Pulse nightclub how the FBI, local law enforcement and the family he lived with would have reacted if his name was Ahmed.
I want laws to make it harder for some people to get access to any weapons, I want to outlaw devises that convert semi-automatic weapons, and there are probably some weapons that don't belong in the hands of private citizens. I want to live in a country where the freedoms that made us great are mitigated by the thoughtfulness that makes us continue to be so. I want the nonsense to stop, the shouting, the posturing and the downright disgusting nature of the rhetoric to stop. We are sick as a culture not because we have guns but because we refuse to speak openly and honestly about them. Because we are polarized and too many so-called leaders cannot be trusted. The children are screaming at us because that is all they think we can hear. Let's prove them wrong and listen, because under the tears, the anger and pain they do have a still small voice that is powerful. It is time to focus and just freaking listen.
No comments:
Post a Comment