REALLY?

Note: I wrote this on December 14^th. Hopefully, it is not taken in any other way than how it was intended. I have no special insight in regard to the madness that the incident in Newtown, Connecticut represents.

Today is the day we saw senseless mass murders take place in Connecticut. We are experienced with this type of tragedy, but never with something quite like this. Our hearts broke when, at the time of the Gabrielle Giffords' shooting incident in Arizona, a young girl, Christina Taylor Green, was hit by a stray bullet and killed. That was one child. Today there were twenty! Do our feelings become numb with such a number or with the repetitiveness of such incidents and do we have to accept this as just another reality that characterizes modern life?

No, it's not inevitable. We know that those nations with strict gun control laws have, by far, fewer incidents of gun violence. Historically, in modern times, some have had mass murders, but nothing like the numbers we are seeing within our nation during our own lifetimes. I have visited some of those countries and never felt for a moment that I was in an oppressed country. Today, my mind has roamed over the different aspects of this tragedy. It has ranged to related and, some might say, unrelated topics and circumstances. I have given some thought to this whole notion that there is little we can do about limiting the number of guns out there because of the Second Amendment.

As I understand it, those who support unlimited gun ownership and unlimited gun trade cite the amendment to claim that these conditions are constitutionally protected. Yet this argument does not seem to hold equally to all constitutionally protected transactions. For example, I find it inexplicable that many who are so concerned with gun rights engage in antagonistic political activities when it comes to whether a woman can attain a constitutionally protected abortion. For that woman who feels she needs an abortion, she will find in some areas of this nation it is nearly or outright impossible to get that abortion. Yet, in those very areas of the country, there are practically no limitations or obstacles to anyone exercising his or her unquestioned and unlimited right to obtain a firearm. I couldn't help weighing the dichotomy this disconnect represents: the relative worth of a non-conscious life form versus that of a six year old. Why do I think this seemingly unrelated thought? I think it because I can't help noticing that those among us who are most vocal in attacking the constitutionally protected right to have an abortion are, in many cases, those who are most vigorous in their efforts to protect the questionable rights surrounding the ownership and selling of firearms. Unfair to make this relationship between seemingly unrelated concerns? Well, that's one of the ironies that is angering me today.

I can't help thinking – and perhaps those who want reasonable gun control should take note – that those who have successfully placed legal obstacles to those who would either provide abortion services or those in need of an abortion, on the other hand, have craftily taken advantage of constitutional law to protect the interests of the gun industry and those who wish unrestrained access to acquiring firearms. While in many southern states, governors and legislatures have thought of inventive ways to make it almost impossible to obtain an abortion – in some cases, to one hundred percent effectiveness – they or just about anyone else can't find ways to reign in the number of guns that are out there. When any efforts to bridle in the excessive quantities of guns and other weapons are raised, cries abound in our political environment that express outrage. How dare one even think of placing any obstacles in the way of anyone getting a gun or a rifle no matter how destructive the weapon might be? After all, the cries announce, it's that person's constitutional right to own a gun or rifle even if he or she has a questionable past or has a mental illness.¹

I have in the past questioned the interpretation that many and now the courts have used to determine the meaning of the Second Amendment. Of course, leading that pro-gun advocacy has been the NRA. But even in singling out the NRA, we need to be careful. Recent surveys indicate that the rank and file of that organization support, along with most Americans, restraints on the ownership and selling of firearms. Yet, that organization maintains the position that we as a nation cannot sensibly put in place the types of laws and programs that would get a handle on this seemingly unlimited cache of weapons that is out there among us – weapons that are becoming ever more dangerous and destructive.

Why does that arsenal exist? To protect us? Well, it obviously is not doing so. As a matter of fact, it is only heightening our chances of meeting a gun-wielding person with a troubled mind threatening our lives and those of our loved ones. Or perhaps we might fall victim to some nearby altercation or youth gang activity where a gun is pulled, discharged, and we are in the path of its bullet's projection. Yes, the chances are low for any one of us being so victimized, but in total, too many of us are. If not you or I, maybe a loved one will be the one not coming home some evening. And by loved ones, as we found out today, our concern is not limited to any age group – six year old children, for God's sake. Even the youngest among us, in the safest of settings that we can provide, are potentially in mortal danger with an ever more probability that the worst can happen.

Note: While the above argument is not directly related to civics education, per se, it surely identifies a topic a civics classroom can and should address. The extremity of the events in Connecticut are such that I felt the need to express my reaction. Thank you for allowing me this indulgence.

1I know that there are federal laws against mentally ill persons buying a firearm, but with the gun show loophole – which sidesteps the need for a background check – and the need for a person to be adjudicated with such an illness, this protection has proven to be ineffective. In addition, this doesn't take into account the illegal market for guns where no legal considerations exist.