Stephen Kent
While watching news of the second subway murder to occur in New York City in three weeks, I heard this comment: “Great, let’s ban all subways.”
It referred sarcastically to a second person pushed to his death in front of a subway train.
It was a good wisecrack, perhaps, but bad logic. There is no comparison between homicides committed by firearms and by subway trains.
A subway is meant to transport people. The prime purpose of a firearm is to kill. Banning a subway for use in a bad way is ridiculous. Not so for firearms.
After a week or so of silence following the Newtown, Conn., school shootings, which presumably provided time for reflection, the best the National Rifle Association could offer as a solution to the gun problem is more guns.
This is the mindset of the nuclear arms race. The way to prevent nuclear weapons is to make more nuclear weapons, putting the very existence of the world at risk in the process.
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” Wayne LaPierre, vice president of the National Rifle Association, said in a news conference.
The inevitable national discussion on limiting firearms will come down to rights: the inalienable rights which are immutable and the rights granted by the Constitution, which can be changed to reflect the passage of time and the advances in science and technology.
In addition, there are proposals in several states to train and arm teachers.
“Of all the air-headed proposals to prevent another massacre of children and teachers, the idea that takes the cake is the one of arming teachers with guns to outshoot the assassins,” said Thomas A. Shannon, executive director emeritus of the National School Boards Association. “This idea is a distraction. The guiding idea should be to rid U.S. cities and towns of weapons of mass destruction. It’s as simple as that.”
As gun control advocates try to outlaw military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, gun enthusiasts are on the defensive.
Mass killings have given birth to a new field: massacre management.
The inevitable national discussion on limiting firearms will come down to rights: the inalienable rights which are immutable and the rights granted by the Constitution, which can be changed to reflect the passage of time and the advances in science and technology.
The Bill of Rights dealt with problems that were contemporary two centuries ago. A problem at the time of the First Amendment, freedom of speech, was that criticism of the monarch was prohibited and harshly punished.
The problem addressed by the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, is that there was no standing army, no local police force, leaving protection up to the individual.
[hotblock]
A problem addressed by the Third Amendment no longer exists: the quartering of troops in private homes.
Things change.
Historian Jill Lepore has shown there are current issues not considered in the Constitution: railroads, banks, women, education, free markets, privacy, health care, wiretapping.
The Second Amendment did not anticipate granting carte blanche for the misuse use of the type of weapons unimaginable at the time that right was granted.
The right was meant to form militias, not for individuals to bear arms.
A society increasingly desensitized to violence through entertainment and national policy has an effect on an understanding of the Second Amendment.
“With regard to the regulation of firearms, first, the intent to protect one’s loved ones is an honorable one, but simply put, guns are too easily accessible,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a December statement.
It is time for our nation to renew a culture of life in our society. Unlimited access to weapons is not part of this life.
***
Kent is the retired editor of archdiocesan newspapers in Omaha and Seattle. He can be contacted at Considersk@gmail.com.
PREVIOUS: Find work/life balance not in a clock but in the heart
NEXT: One hoped-for breakthrough in health care: Being nicer
Let me say that I firmly believe the National Guard should symbolically point their weapons toward Washington, D.C. as a means of ensuring that the Federal Government does not attempt to control the States. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was an attempt to ensure the same thing, namely, that the Federal Government may not attempt to disarm the National Guard.
In regard to the present gun control debate, it seems to me that Americans do NOT have the right to possess tanks, battleships, B-52 Bombers or automatic rifles unless they are members of the National Guard. Given the present political climate, it is likely that common sense gun restrictions will be enacted which in no way effects the efficacy of the 2nd Amendment.
There seems to be some disagreement whether crew-manned weapons (which need more than one person to be operated) were considered in the drafting and ratification of the Second Amendment. Certainly, whatever device an infantryman in a standing army has, the common citizen should have, to resist tyranny; such is the “efficacy of the 2nd Amendment.”
So-called “high capacity magazines” are used by modern infantryman; they have also been used by civilians to defend against home invasion and assaults by multiple attackers.
Machine guns are available to those willing to put up with the requirements of the National Firearms Act.
The Church demands that we take adequate steps to protect those placed under our care; this duty falls to the individual, even if deadly force is used when reasonable; see the Catechism, 2263-2265. This is not a license to mayhem, but an appreciation of reality!
Trust NO ONE who wishes to disarm you. If you wish to live in denial and naivete, that’s up to you. Don’t interfere with my duties as a citizen and as a human being!
Every Dictator before they seize absolute power over people, take the peoples guns away so that resistance will be futile. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Mussolini banned guns?
Hitler banned Jews from owning guns It is a fact that every single nation that has required the registration of firearms has soon confiscated those firearms, leaving their citizens defenseless.
1911 Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.
1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents were arrested and executed.
1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were killed by the state.
1935 China established gun control. Between 1948 and 1952, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and murdered by the Communists.
1956 Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million “educated” people (about 1/3 of the entire population!) were executed by the Reds.
1964 Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981 over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed, unable to defend themselves.
1970 the Ugandan dictator decreed gun control. During the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were murdered.
Over 56 million people have died, unable to defend themselves, because of gun control in the last century alone.
On the other hand, lenient gun laws mean less crime. In Switzerland, all males from the ages of 20 to 42 are required to have guns. The Swiss have almost no murders and a very low crime rate!
Mr. Kent,
I don’t know whether you are intellectually deficient or merely intellectually dishonest, but either way you make several false and misleading statements.
1. You state “There is no comparison between homicides committed by firearms and by subway trains.” This is false. A homicide is a homicide. An individual is no more or less dead based upon the method utilized to kill or murder him.
2. It is overly implicit to claim that “The prime purpose of a firearm is to kill.” In reality the purpose of a firearm depends on the user. As far as the Second Amendment is concerned, the purpose of firearms is to allow the citizenry to act as a check and balance against the government. Without the same firearms that the government has, it is physically impossible for the people to act as that check.
3. If your goal is purely to decrease deaths, then you should first target the literally thousands of items and practices that result in more deaths than firearms, both in pure numbers and in per capita numbers. This list runs the gamut from vehicles, to sports, to alcohol, to kitchen knives.
4. Your nuclear arms analogy has a strikingly major flaw-It has worked! So by your own admission, more firearms would produce the same results. If you doubt yourself please see the seminal study “More Guns, Less Crime, The Bias Against Guns” by Dr. John Lott, PhD, a Yale University Economics Professor.
5. It is very telling that the only argument you proffer as an argument against arming teachers is to quote an individual whose only argument is to make an ad hominem attack against those he disagrees with. In other words, his only argument is to personally attack the person he disagrees with. Apparently, that is the level you must also feel necessary to stoop to-since you chose to include the quote, which included nothing of substance.
6. Your argument about parts of the Constitution no longer being relevant is also seriously flawed. If the Second Amendment is no longer relevant and should therefore be ignored or done away with completely, then do you also argue that the First Amendment should also be done away with? After all it was only important because it “criticism of the monarch was prohibited and harshly punished.” And since the quartering of troops is no longer an issue perhaps we should also do away with the Third Amendment? But let me ask you this, have you considered that the reason criticizing the “king” is no longer an issue is BECAUSE of the First Amendment? Or that the reason the quartering of troops is no longer an issue is BECAUSE of the Third Amendment? And if these Amendments were stripped away, how would you respond to the government when it did move to ban criticism of the “king” and to quarter troops in your home or business?
7. You state that “Things change.” Well they do, but human nature does not, nor does the evil of totalitarian governments. Nor the fact that until the Second Coming, there will always be bad people that all people have a God given right to defend themselves against. There will always be Stalin’s and Hitler’s waiting in the wings, including in the United States. We are not immune to human nature or to the cyclic events of history. If you truly believe this then you cannot be a Christian. After all “things change” so the Bible and the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church may eventually also become irrelevant, if they have not already done so. But wait, you say that the Bible and Holy Mother Church contain immutable truths. Yes, and so does the Constitution!
8. I saved the best for last, your most convoluted comment that “the inalienable rights which are immutable and the rights granted by the Constitution.” The Constitution does not grant a single right! Let me make this clear, the Constitution does not grant a single solitary right! The Constitution ONLY recognizes pre-existing, God-given rights that are manifested by Natural Law. Any constitutional scholar can tell you this. Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin never claimed to “give” people the right to free speech, they only claimed to recognize that pre-existing right. You see they discussed the fact that any government that claims to grant rights can also revoke those rights, but that is simply not the case in the United States of America. Also, the government does not grant power to the people, it is the opposite. The people grant the power to the government. That makes it impossible that the Constitution, including the Second Amendment to “grant” anything. If you doubt this then I recommend that you read both The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers, this is a point that they all agreed upon! Your lack of knowledge in American History, Government, and Civics is seriously disturbing and it makes your lemming opinion ignorant, uninformed, and dangerous.
Sincerely,
Lt. William J. Lawler II, M.Ed
Soldier
Teacher
Historian
Firearms Owner