On Guns, Mass Slaughter, and the 2nd Amendment
"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August, 2018)
Ted Cruz: Keeping the U.S. safe for the gunners.
(Image by Gage Skidmore) Details DMCA
As regular readers of mine know, I write on this subject regularly. And my columns, like this one, are often in part repetitive. That is because the "gun problem" and the mass deaths it causes on a regular basis of course continues, repetitively. And it has one primary cause that we need more people in the media and politics to face. That cause of course is the Republican Party, but more importantly the fact that at the Federal, state and local levels it receives massive and regular financial support from the six major sectors of the gun industry: the rifle/long-gun/automatic weapons industry; the hand-gun industry; the gun ammunition industry; the gun 'dealers' industry (wholesale and retail); the gun show industry; and the on-line gun-sales industry (which can be connected to all of the above, or not). And oh yes, the NRA is not a driver here. It is just a front for the gun/ammo industry.
The publication of this column this time around is of course stimulated by the recent mass shootings in Buffalo, NY and Uvalde, TX. But the references in this column to the ones that stimulated its last version (repeated at the beginning of the column, below), sadly, tragically are of just the nature. As is, of course, the response of Sen. Cruz (quoted below), his follow crude Texan, Gov. Abbott, and so many other tools of the gun lobby, which read from a script, most likely written for them in the offices of industry's front-man-and-woman, the NRA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The political responses to these tragedies in Atlanta and Boulder have been sadly predictable. Ted Cruz' (you know who he is, I'm sure) most quoted comment at a Senate hearing is that "they" (meaning those awful Democrats) "just want to take your guns away." Nothing about the tragedies themselves, possible causes, possible remedies. Using the well-honed other Republican line of attack on even the mildest proposals to do something about the periodic slaughters, Sen. John Kennedy (LA) turned quickly to changing the subject, this time around to drunk driving (about which there happens to be quite a bit of law and penalties, civil and criminal, which of course has no relationship to mass murder. But we shall leave that discussion for another time).
As every reader of OpEdNews knows we as a nation have been here, whether Atlanta and Boulder or Buffalo and Uvalde, before, over and over again. And as long as the Repubs. have their trigger fingers on at least one branch of the Federal government, nothing happens. And "nothing happens," to begin with, because of the mis-use of the law. First let's deal with the matter of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, which, of course is always at the center of the Constitutional argument, in re "My/their 2nd Amendment Rights." In that regard, it is very interesting to see how the Amendment actually reads, to wit:
"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."
Now this approach-to-gun-ownership-and-for-what-purpose(s) stands in sharp contrast to what Republicans from Cruz to Boebert to Greene to Abbott to Zeldin (you may not have heard of him but he is a pro-"gun"/anti-abortion-rights Repub. who got redistricted out of a safe New York Cong. seat to a contestable one, and who is now running for Governor) say it says. Which is: "the right of gun ownership of any gun, by anyone of any capacity, mental or otherwise, in any context and for any use, human or animal hunting or otherwise, is to be totally unregulated and totally beyond the reach of the law, and is to require no evidence of instruction in use, maintenance, and gun safety, unless a gun owner just happens to wound or kill another person, (unless of course they can claim self-defense or, as in the Trayvon Martin case, the ' the target was thought by the shooter to be 'suspicious')."
As it happens, for most of its history the Supreme Court has interpreted it to mean that it does NOT grant to every citizen an unlimited right to own one or more weapons of unspecified types. In fact, Former Chief Justice Burger, no weak-kneed radical he, had the following to say about the matter: "The idea that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual to own a gun is a 'fraud.' " It was Justice Scalia, you know, the "we adhere to stare decisis" (except when it doesn't suit their purposes) guy, who in "Heller," writing for a 5-4 majority, opened the door to the "unregulated private gun ownership" argument. Now it happens that "Heller" refers to guns in the home. But the gun industry front (more on that below), aided by the Repubs. who the NRA and the Gun Industry fund in massive amounts, just ran away with what even Scalia actually said. And of course, both Scalia and the Repubs. ignored the first two phrases of the 2nd, and pretend that its text begins with the words "the right."
Now, along with the late Justice Scalia, you might be surprised to know, I happen to be a big fan of strict constructionism when interpreting the Constitution. Thus, just as Chief Justice Burger did, in reading the 2nd's plain language, when taken as a whole, it is quite obvious that it can mean only one of two things. First, it provides a right to the people, in the protection of the free state, to form well-regulated militias. Or second, it provides to individuals the right to bear arms, in a well-regulated system for the protection of the free state.
But the NRA and its Republican front-people (e.g., guns-on-the-mantle-Rep.-Boebert of CO) have of course not read it in either of those two ways and have spent a good deal of time and money making sure that many folks in both public and the media don't read it that way either. Thus, so far, with the Repubs. having had substantial control of what the Federal government can actually do about the problem (that is, as long as they control the Senate, of course), in one way or another, for many years now nothing has happened in the way of promoting gun safety and gun-ownership/control. But in constructing some kind of long-range political-legal program to deal with this deadly matter here are several thoughts on what else might be added to the standard arguments for gun-control legislation that could actually work to reduce gun deaths.
Even with Scalia's opinion in "Heller," which applied to the regulation of gun ownership in the home, the door was opened wide to interpreting the 2nd Amendment as sanctioning unlimited gun-ownership rights only by a mass advertising campaign run by the NRA and supported by countless Repub. politicians. Regardless, neither the 2nd nor "Heller" says that. This should be emphasized.
Second, as has been pointed out, it has to be recognized by the gun control-regulation forces that the primary opponent to change is not the NRA. What has to be recognized is that the real opponents of gun safety/control legislation are the six major personal weapons industries: the rifle/long-gun/automatic weapons industry; the hand-gun industry (sometimes the same as the one just above; sometimes not); the gun ammunition industry; the gun 'dealers' industry (wholesale and retail); the gun show industry; and the on-line gun-sales industry (which can be connected to all of the above, or not).(Private sales, which are uncounted, do not fall into this set.) The NRA is just their front organization.
It is to these segments of U.S. commerce, and in some cases the hedge-funds etc. that own them, all major funders of the Republican Party and Republican politicians, to which major political, economic, and social pressure should be turned. Further, the point should be made that the primary reason that they want no gun-ownership restrictions of any kind is simply so that they can sell more guns, more ammunition, in more places, for more profit.
Third, few seem to notice, and thus this point is simply not made, ever, that even under the broadest, pro-gun interpretation of the Second Amendment, gun ownership is already limited. Private parties cannot own, let's say, mounted machine guns, rocket propelled grenade launchers, artillery guns, mortars, anti-tank weapons, bazookas, or anti-aircraft artillery. Or ground-to-air missiles. And then, what about the guns on tanks? Modern tanks have several guns, usually one fairly large cannon and one heavy machine gun, and they may as well have one anti-aircraft weapon. If the 2nd permits unlimited gun-ownership, why can't one have the guns that come with tanks? (I have previously dealt with the bundle of licensing, permits, and insurance issues that come up with the tanks-for-the-memories issue.)
But the point here is, obviously, private ownership of many kinds of guns is already prohibited. This should be one of the principal arguments made in favor of once again prohibiting the private ownership of assault rifles and their relatives. And oh, by the way, the former assault weapons ban did work to reduce deaths from such weapons.
Fourth and finally, in my view much more emphasis should be put on the licensing/registration/insurance set of proposals. Since private gun ownership (see just above) is already strictly limited as to types, there is no 2nd Amendment argument (in terms of Constitutional law) that could be raised to this one (even though the gun industry and its Repub. allies would be screaming it from the roof-tops). Let's say that anyone could own a gun (except that those types already prohibited, like heavy machine guns, and persons who would be prohibited from doing so under a system of comprehensive background checks), just like anyone can own a car (except those who are prohibited from doing so for a variety of reasons, like so-and-so many drunk driving convictions).
But then let's say, in terms of safety, that the prospective gun-owner would have to get a license. That is all persons would simply have to pass an exam on the usage of the kind of gun(s) they would like to own, (presumably after taking a gun-operation/safety course, just as in obtaining a driver's license), meet minimum age-restrictions, meet certain criminal-record minimums, and be required to have liability/damage insurance.
In summary, first, if the private ownership of certain kinds of guns can be prohibited, "under the 2nd Amendment," then the private ownership of any kinds of guns can be prohibited "under the 2nd Amendment." For, and the gun-industry/Republican alliance might not know this, neither tanks nor assault rifles existed at the time the 2nd Amendment was written; actually, no kinds of rifles existed back then either. It becomes then a matter of which kinds of guns, in addition to tank cannon and bazookas, can be prohibited for private ownership. Second, since the term "well-regulated" is in the Amendment, then gun ownership can be regulated, say by licensing, registration, and an insurance requirement. Third, the major source of funding for the NRA is the gun industry and its several components, which in turn are major funders of the Repubs. It is against the industry and their owners/funders/profit-makers that the propaganda war should be principally be fought. Just remember: "Guns don't kill people; people with guns kill people." Since most people cannot make guns or ammunition, it is their makers, and sellers, who are the ultimate murderers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Thought: BUT, BUT, BUT. All these thoughts about what the 2nd Amendment really means and what counts as a gun are all very interesting (at least to me, which is why I write on them with some frequency). But for the Republicans, led by Ted Cruz on this issue, it just comes down to just one thing: POLITICAL MONEY, and how much they get from the Gun Industry. Oh yes. Cruz just happens to be at the top of that heap: click here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This column is based in part on several that I published some time ago on the original BuzzFlash: Dr. J.'s BF Commentary No. 145: "NRA: Tanks for the Memories," published on BuzzFlash on Tue, 06/15/2010: Click Here, and with significant text from the most recent version: "The Gun Problem: From What the 2nd Amend. Really Says through Who the Enemy of Gun Safety Really Is to Some Thoughts on What Can be Done," Click Here, published on OpEdNews, 9/7/2019, and, most recently: The Mass Murder Problem --- Again, click here.