“UNTHINKABLE LOSS” screamed The Seattle Times headline following the mass slaying that left 26
human beings—including 20 children—dead in a school in Connecticut. “Shock” is
another sentiment that has been heard. Words like “unthinkable” and “shock”
tend to denote something that is “unexpected.” The recent massacres at Virginia
Tech, in Aurora, Colorado and in Brookfield, Wisconsin were also “unthinkable”
and “shocking” to the communities
involved—and unexpected. The realist might point out, however, that the
frequency of these incidents in the U.S. suggests hypocrisy and denial on a
national scale. Save for the National Rifle Association and assorted gun “enthusiasts,”
everyone talks about passing gun laws to prevent the next mass killing; but in
the end, they only blame the “sick” individual who perpetrated the act. And
then people are “shocked” when the next massacre occurs.
These incidents have become something akin to natural
disasters, like earthquakes. We know that they are going to happen; we just
don’t know when. They have become an “inevitable” byproduct of a society doped-up
on guns. I remember many years ago seeing a Seattle police officer pull over a
man driving without a license. I happened to be walking to my car and he asked
me if I could give the driver a lift to where he was going; I couldn’t believe he
asked me to do this, but I thought I’d be a good citizen and do as requested.
On the way to delivering this consignment, the man I was driving lifted up his
T-shirt so that he could show-off what he had neglected to tell the cop about:
a nickel-plated 45-caliber pistol. I pulled my car over to the curb and told
him as jovially as possible that this was as far as I was going with him.
This is also a country where a very vocal and fanatical
minority demands the unlimited right to bear arms; they even openly declare
their “right” to use them on their fellow human beings with the instinctual
zest of a common predator. Cold-blooded killers of the Old West are
mythologized; actor Charles Bronson, despite a lengthy film career, is forever
identified with the “Death Wish” vigilante. The
Turner Diaries—a white supremacist primer on how to wage an anti-government
race war—is an “underground” bestseller. “Survivalists” stockpile weapons as
well as foodstuffs, threatening to kill anyone who comes near. Violent street
and prison gangs seem to know only one “answer” to questions of social
dysfunction—the “business” end of a knife or bullet. For others, like Jacksonville
shooter Michael Dunn, playing loud music is enough to set them off—or just the
appearance of a “stranger” in their yard. Some politicians—say, in
Arizona—rather than defuse gun madness, actually increase it; campaign
commercials with candidates showing off their prowess with automatic weapons
should—in theory—make people unsuitable for public office, but obviously not
everywhere.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
states the following: “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.” If you want to know how the original meaning of an amendment
is not always applicable in today’s world, consider the Third Amendment: “No
Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent
of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
This amendment was promulgated after the practice of colonists being forced to
provide quarters for British soldiers in their own homes, as a money-saving scheme;
of course, during the American Civil War this amendment wasn’t always observed.
However, even if “proscribed by law,” it is difficult to imagine Americans
accepting any forcible requirement to house soldiers in their own private
quarters—or even understanding why the founding fathers thought it was
necessary to include this amendment.
And so it is that the Second Amendment’s interpretation has
undergone dramatic alteration. Back in the days of the founding fathers, the
only guns available were single-bullet muskets that took time to reload; “massacres”
by single crazed individuals were unheard of, save by poisoning. No one could
have imagined back then that humanity would have the insanity to invent
automatic weapons with fifty-round drums that one person could use to cause
mass mayhem; the founding fathers no doubt would be horrified to learn how the
Second Amendment had been bastardized into something completely beyond what
their own comprehension: From the citizenry having the right to guard against
the imposition of tyrannical regimes—to a country where violence is ingrained
in the very culture and fabric of the country.
I’ve never understood the fascination with guns. Owning a
hand gun or other weapon with the idea of “protection” brings with it the
belief that one will actually need it for that purpose. Instead of seeking ways
to avoid violence confrontation, people with this belief would prefer to
justify using the weapon when other, more reasoned, methods could be used. The
reality is that weapons for “self-defense” are less often used for that
purpose, but in circumstances not contemplated—such as the Newtown massacre.
The problem is, we are “contemplating” such acts on an ever increasing basis.
And what will “we” do about it? Apparently nothing but wring our hands and
offer our “condolences” to the most recent group of victims.
No comments:
Post a Comment