To Americans brought up under the Second Amendment Rights, that permit citizens to bear arms, guns are part and parcel of the culture, where one can even purchase guns with minimal screening in places like Walmart, with 5,000 stores that sells almost everything everywhere in the USA.
WHICH CAMP ARE YOU IN?
There are three distinct actors in this debate. ONE –Those advocating strict gun control, even the abolition of the second amendment, on the grounds that this amendment is anachronistic, and almost unique to the Constitution of the USA and not to any other country on the face of the earth. TWO –Those who will hear of nothing, and don’t wish to change this right of the individual, and are vociferously represented by the NRA (National Rifle Association) that is well funded and lobbies in the US Congress, where lawmakers fear their strength in the heartland of rural USA. THREE – The Supreme Court that interprets the Constitutional Rights, when it comes up for debate, and where those advocating control have been singularly unsuccessful in getting an interpretation of the Constitution favourable to the abolition, or substantial restriction.
THE TROUBLE WITH MASS SHOOTINGS
Each time there is a mass shooting this question comes up for debate up and down the country, and the people have strongly held views on the subject. However in the 250 year history of the Country, the second amendment is seemingly unshakable!
So how do you shake it without upsetting the majority? Two thirds majority of Congress is required I believe to change the Constitution and there is no chance of that every happening. So given the ground realities and taking a practical stance, let us take the security of the person as paramount, and look at how fire arms have changed in 250 years.
IF you take protection of the person, then I should have the right to protect myself from harm, and permitted to carry a weapon, concealed upon my person or openly in plain sight, to both deter the aggressor, or provide security in case of attack. Given the fact that the right to bear arms is sacrosanct and there is nothing you or I can do about it there are just two avenues we can start by forcing a COMPROMISE that is partially acceptable to the citizenry. Then the debate should concentrate on what kind of weapon will give me this level of protection, and be compatible with the second amendment rights at the same time.
PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION
It is quite obvious that many if not all the of the mass shooters, and remember gun crime is not restricted to mass shootings, though it is them that hits the headlines and starts the debate amongst the public, are carried out by people with certain personal issues, of anger against some group, or some past betrayal leading to some need for revenge, etc. The common denominator is that these people have some kind of mental instability. One must also remember that suicides are also gun related, when guns are freely available, however with Sri Lanka high on the suicide statistics, it is carried out by other means, negating this argument for gun control.
The second common factor is that these unstable individuals, seem to be able acquire high velocity, repeater assault rifles that can kill and maim numbers of people in a very short span, something that only armies or terrorist prevention militia need, and should not IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE be freely available to anyone who wishes to buy them. The mere fact that any person who wants to can amass an arsenal in a short space of time is a frightening prospect, especially if this person is mentally unstable, and no one can predict when and where that person is liable to use it. That means NO ONE IS SAFE.
If that latter statement isn’t enough for a normal human being to say, enough is enough, we must control the types of weapons people can purchase, what is?
Of course there is a looming Presidential Election in 2020 in the USA, and if a candidate comes up with a compromise that they wish to enact that is legally likely to pass, then that must be a platform that would obtain majority support. People are not in extreme camps and it is time we test it out.
Of course in a Presidential campaign there are other issues that may be paramount relegating this depending when this matter is on the front or back burner as a result of a new shooting or mass killing.
Republican President Trump being from the rural red neck backing, ironically has the best chance of bringing this about, and be remembered for posterity, if he wants to leave a legacy, advocating moderate control that minimizes the likelihood of the unstable population getting their hands on lethal weapons. After all it is he, who says these people doing it are nut cases, without admitting that the Country does in fact have more than a fair share of nut cases, growing daily, and his off the cuff remarks, that are meant for his political base, further empowers the nutters to act, citing the President as a source of their inspiration! It is worth a stab, and there is nothing to lose, DON’T YOU THINK?