I am not anti-gun. I’m pro-knife. Consider the merits of the knife. In the first place, you have to catch up with someone in order to stab him. A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness. We’d turn into a whole nation of great runners. Plus, knives don’t ricochet. And people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives.
- Molly Ivins
I realize the title of this post may well serve as something of a lightning rod. I hope that’s the case; I’d like nothing more than to thoroughly upset the gun nuts who cling to their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment with the same tenacity a dog shows for a new bone. I want people to be angry…because if they’re angry, at least they’re thinking…or something close to it.
The fact of the matter is that the Founding Fathers made a HUGE mistake in saddling us with the 2nd Amendment. Before you go off on me, keep in mind that I’ll explain what I mean.
In the late 18th century, the 2nd Amendment made sense. Calling 911 wasn’t an option, and the average American faced very real and imminent threats of the sort we don’t today. 2013 finds us in a much different world than that of 1789. We have the benefit of the rule of law, efficient and well trained law enforcement, and the most powerful military in the world. Despite those who see violent criminals around every corner, we live in a much safer world today.
The problem we face today is that the 27 vague words that comprise the 2nd Amendment have created the current mess we’re in today…and it’s the Founding Fathers’ fault. If they’d intended for the right to bear arms to be sacrosanct and inviolate, don’t you think the 2nd Amendment would be two sentences instead of one run-on jumble? Their impreciseness has cost thousands of innocent citizens their lives. It’s also created a class of gun nuts who cling to their guns with a love that exceeds anything else in their lives.
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
in 1791, when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, a well regulated militia WAS necessary to the security of a free state, so it made sense to guarantee the right to bear arms. We no longer live in that world. We live in a world in which gun advocates conveniently blow right by the first 13 words and focus like a laser beam on the last 14- “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” I find it interesting that people who normally insist on a strict interpretation of the Constitution bend that rule to fit their prejudice.
The 2nd Amendment is neither sacrosanct nor inviolate…nor is it even applicable to the world we live in today. A entire class has used the selective interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to justify their sick attachment to guns. Their errant, delusional belief that the 2nd Amendment allows them to possess any form and amount of firepower they so desire is directly responsible for acts of mass murder like Columbine, Aurora, Newtown, and here in Portland, Clackamas Town Center.
Because the Founding Fathers’ vagueness was enshrined in the Constitution, we find ourselves engaged in a debate in which one side has adopted an inflexible refusal to consider anything that they interpret as diminishing their “gun rights” even one iota. They’ve convinced themselves beyond reason that the 2nd Amendment is immutable and unchangeable, and any attempt to even discuss the matter is unacceptable. They value the 2nd Amendment over life itself, because their intransigence is directly responsible for thousands upon thousands of civilian deaths.
And now plans are being made for an armed march to Washington, D.C., on July 4th. People like that should be in jail, but that’s another story or another time. My point is that human life should be held to be a consideration far superior to gun rights, yet the gun nuts believe the opposite. To them the loss of innocent civilian lives is merely the cost of maintaining their “freedom.”
Hey, as long as it’s someone else burying their child, right?
Many gun advocates believe that the 2nd Amendment was intended as a fail-safe against a tyrannical government. Despite any evidence to corroborate that point of view, the’ve used that argument to vehemently refuse the discussion of any sort of gun control. Because of this, military-grade firepower is available to anyone for any reason.
The 2nd Amendment is a mistake for two reasons: 1) enshrining it in the Constitution has made it impossible to change it to reflect the world we live in, and 2) we no longer live in the late 18th century. The vague, imprecise language of the 2nd Amendment has allowed gun nuts to cling to it as if their lives depended on it. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If Australia and England can live without guns, there’s absolutely NO reason that the United States of America shouldn’t be able to do the same.
WE DESERVE BETTER.
