There is a retired guy in Midland, Alabama, who has killed a school bus driver, abducted a kid, and held him hostage for over six days. The community is outraged, in pain, holding vigils. Law enforcement people apparently can’t go in because the guy is heavily armed. However, they are in contact with the abductor, who has agreed to provide coloring books and medication for the child, who has Asperger’s Syndrome. For these actions, the sheriff—as you can see in the clip below—took the liberty of thanking the abductor for caring for the kid.
I’m having a disconnect, here.
Well, how about yesterday’s news? A navy seal, a guy who killed 150 people in Iraq, came home, wrote a bestselling book about it, and is shot on a shooting range. Another guy was shot as well, and the killer took off in Kyle’s car (he being the seal), went to his sister’s house, confessed and then went home. The sister called the cops, who apprehended the killer some hours later.
You’ll have guessed my reaction. Simply put, if a gun cannot protect a navy seal who is an expert sniper from what I presume is a surprise attack, well…what’s the point of having a gun? Actually, it gets a bit worse. Who knows which of the two people was the first to be dispatched, but presumably there had to be at least a second when the second victim could have turned, drew a weapon, shot the assailant.
Unless you’re trained to respond instantly and reactively, your reaction to a sudden and shocking violent act is stupor. You’re stunned. You stand there with your mouth open looking down at your slain friend and you don’t do the obvious thing. Which is, of course, to take the assailant out before he takes you out.
Right, so we’ve got an insane guy in Alabama with an Asperger’s child in a heavily armed tornado shelter. (This, by the way, seems like the least pleasant way for anyone to spend six days—it may tell you how crazy the guy is….) We’ve got a sniper who couldn’t defend himself.
And we’ve got a whole bunch of nuts who believe that the government is out to get them, and their only defense is to have as many guns as possible. And the quote the second amendment, which runs as follows:
The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[97]
OK, Educated Reader, I know you caught it. Here’s the complete version:
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.[97]
It was probably those famously radical Madison Public Schools in the dangerous days of the late fifties and early sixties that put the idea in my mind: the second amendment was not about telling people it was just fine to have semi-automatic weapons, it was about ensuring that the citizens could grab their muskets and fight in a well regulated militia. Short form: individuals don’t have a right to bear arms—the state does.
Well, was I busy daydreaming of boys in high school? Was that the class I skipped, in order to play chamber music with a friend? It was forty years ago, after all.
What I didn’t know, until I tracked it down just now, is that the US Supreme Court only decided that the second amendment protected an individual’s right to bear arms in 2008. Yup—that’s four and a half years ago. And as you can imagine, it was a five / four decision—with all the justices that you’d expect piling up to protect this “right.” And here, of course, is the voice of reason, John Paul Stevens:
In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".[49] Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.[49]
So now we’re stuck. It’s a curious thing, how people who have a visceral, knee-jerk hatred paranoia of the federal government have no trouble jumping on the bandwagon and rushing off to Washington when it fits their purpose. And of course it’s no surprise that of the 47 amicus curiae briefs, most of congress, John McCain, and—no surprise here—Dick Cheney came out swinging for this “right.” Obama did not, nor, interestingly, did the United States Department of Justice.
All of us are busy placating. “No,” we tell the gun crazies, “we’re not after all your guns—just the semiautomatics and the assault weapons, and please—couldn’t you go along with background checks at gun shows?” Obama claims that he shoots skeet at Camp David, and then has to release a picture of him with—literally—a smoking gun to prove it. Hasn’t he learned? Half of the population “knows” only two things about him: that he wasn’t born in the state of Hawaii and that he’s a Muslim.
In fairness, interpreting the United States Constitution is nothing you do on a Saturday afternoon while drinking beer with the boys. I’m just as glad not to have to do it. How does free speech as comprehended by the founders apply to something like the Internet? Don’t have a clue. But I do have a thought about the guns that individuals have a “right” to own. Sure! Let’s be a strict literalist here. Of course you can have a gun.
A musket!
