Reasonable gun laws are not in conflict with our rights
What I miss about teaching English and journalism in high school, which I did for years, are the discussions we always had with a diverse student body to try to come to some consensus about different issues. I remember when my classes were reading John Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath,” and several students said they didn’t think they could just pick a few things and leave their homes forever as the farm families did during the Dust Bowl years. At the time, there were some Vietnamese students in my classes who had left their homes with their families in the middle of the night to get on boats and leave Vietnam forever. One of those students raised her hand and said, “My father came in at midnight and said, ‘Pack a bag, we’re leaving.’” That offered a different and realistic perspective for the other students—and for me, as well.
An AR-15, as was used in recent mass shootings
Today, I use Facebook, email and my blog to have the same kinds of discussions when I start missing those classroom dialogues or a controversial issue comes up. One of those issues is the recent mass murders with the AR-15 military-style, semi-automatic rifle used to kill 10 African Americans in a grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y., and 19 elementary school students and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas, and the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which states: “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.”
Perhaps there are many gun owners would be willing to join a militia that is raised from the civilian population in an emergency, although I have always wondered about that since many in our population have resisted the draft or any military service in every way possible—including some of our politicians who are instrumental in making the decisions of sending our youth into battle.
As one who considers the written word to mean what it says—not what I’d like it to mean or what others would like it to mean—I’ve always thought that when the Constitution and the Second Amendment were written, those people didn’t have a National Guard or access to all the types of weapons we now have. As it was originally written, the “right to bear arms” was referring to muskets, not the many modern, semi-automatic, military-type assault weapons available today to anybody who may pass a background check, even if they are only 18. Many at that age and even younger have fought and died for our freedom, but they were shooting at an opposing military force, after being trained for that purpose, and not to kill young children in schools or ethnic groups they don’t like or want to eradicate.
The fact is that society has changed, grown and is clearly different than it was when the Bill of Rights was written and accepted on Sept. 25, 1789. While we may need to be able to defend this country on the home front from foreign powers (or even from our own government, as was almost necessary during the past presidential election), the Marine Corps, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard and the National Guard are in place for that purpose now. That security wasn’t totally there at the time the Constitution was written.
Young men and women go into the military and are trained to use weapons of war. But in many states, an 18-year-old can buy virtually any weapon without any training. To get a concealed-carry permit in some states, you have to have training before the permit is issued; you take driver’s training before you are licensed to drive any vehicle; you can’t drink legally until you’re 21 (in most states); you can’t use marijuana at all in most states unless you have a license to do so, medically or for pleasure; you can’t legally use many others drugs, and there are many. … There are countless other things we do that you have to have training or a license to do.
But virtually anybody can buy guns like they buy candy or popcorn. Does that make any sense? Of course, with all the guns in this country, criminals and folks who don’t follow the law will always be able to get a gun. Nobody is trying to disarm all citizens, but it seems more than reasonable to have some safeguards in place to keep people from being armed to the teeth with military-style guns, regardless of their age, mental health or criminal background. We need national red flag laws, background checks and training mandates. We may very well continue to have instances of mass shootings and murders, but if these measures were realized, there would most certainly be fewer of them. It seems the great majority of the population agrees with that and supports reasonable changes in the law if our elected representatives would truly represent us, and not select special interests.
Is it time, then, for the powers that be to amend the Constitution to give definitive meaning to the words for everybody. The Marine Corps has a mantra to live by: “Improvise, adapt and overcome,” which makes sense now.