Metis Meets Mittington is not supposed to turn into one of those tiresome
Polemic Blogfields, of which there are already too many, with too many
participants, and too much waste of good pixels. Nevertheless, I will for once
make an exception, and add some comments and thoughts to the running discussion
on gun control that has surged over the last few days in the wake of the Connecticut
shooting, simply because the subject is so very serious. And I propose to do so
in the most respectful manner possible towards all sides, simply so as not to
antagonise or provoke anybody into harsher, more unrelenting positions.
Let me make a thing or two clear from the start. I am
not an American citizen. I no longer reside in the USA. As such, my opinion on
such matters counts for little, and must be understood merely as the thoughts
of a well-educated member of the human race, gifted with a goodly bit of common
sense and a large experience in life.
Let me make another thing clear right away. Like any
superpower nation, America, and the Americans, have their faults and their
weaknesses; faults and weaknesses which are inevitably inflated and made worse
by being on top in the geopolitical reality. Nevertheless, the place is a
functioning democracy with a solid base. And I wish to make clear, from the
very start, that I have the highest regard for the American Constitution, which
– much as it is imperfect as anything that Man makes – has done an admirable
job over the last two hundred and thirty-four years.
Does this imply, however, that I squarely support the
Second Amendment, which forbids the government to stop its citizens from
bearing arms? Well, yes and no. As long as it is in place, and interpreted the
way it is presently being interpreted, one must, when in America, abide with
it. But constitutional law is not wholly writ in granite, dear reader. An
amendment, and – yes – even an original article, may be changed or repealed; as
was done in the case of the amendment forbidding the drinking of alcohol, for
instance, and in case of the shameful article which counted Afro-Americans as
only 3/5 of a human being (when allotting seats to Congress) and as unworthy of
the vote at all (in the electoral rules).
Would there be a reason to change or repeal the
Second Amendment? Well: it is my firm opinion that there is certainly reason to
update it, to bring it better in line with the changed reality in the USA
today. Let us be frank. What, do you think, would fellows like Thomas
Jefferson, George Washington, and Ben Franklin, to name but a few of the
‘Gods’, think if they were to return to the USA today? Don’t you think they’d
be aghast at the spectacle of disturbed citizens shooting up kindergartens,
schools, movie-houses and hospital waiting rooms with sub-machine guns bought
in a local drug store on the corner? And would they not be shocked to see that
half the nation is willing to condone and accept such massacres, in the name of
constitutional rights? If you answer this question in the negative, I wonder if
you understand the nature and character of your own admirable Founding Fathers,
who were not only great thinkers, but men of deep feeling and common sense.
What exactly does the Second Amendment stipulate?
Well, it says this:
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
That text is pretty clear as to the
plain intention of the authors. It does not say: anybody has the right to possess
any sort of weaponry he fancies, to do with as he pleases, for fun or self-defense
or intimidating his neighbors, or – even – to defend himself, his family, and
the rest of the community, against the evil hordes who soon will invade
suburbia. It speaks clearly of the intention to maintain a ‘well regulated
militia’, i.e. a military force consisting of the free citizens of the country,
with a stake in the survival of the state, able and willing to stand up to
foreign invaders. That, and that only, was the intention of this amendment.
The inspiration for this was, of
course, the American Revolution, in which those same Free Citizens stood up
against the standing army of England sent to subdue them and bring them back
into the colonial fold. America, dear reader, was something new in the 18th
century. It was a country run by Burghers,
by commoners, by folk like you and I. And this was the essence of the thing. In
the old continent, ever since medieval times, commoners were forbidden to bear
arms, which was a privilege of the nobility, meant to guarantee aristocratic hegemony.
The Second Amendment clearly meant to break ruthlessly with the vestiges of
that tradition. This made plain sense. It was what the times demanded, for the
survival of the nation.
But do modern times
still demand the same thing? Hmmm… Not really. Let us face it once again. The
world, and America, have changed. Today, what is left of a Militia in the
States plays a very minor role. National defense no longer depends upon it.
America now has its own professional, standing army. And weapons have changed
considerably. What the founding father envisioned was the honest citizen or
pioneer, with a one-shot musket or rifle, mounted, at the most, with a bayonet.
They certainly were not thinking of rapid-fire weapons that kill dozens of
people in a matter of seconds, in the hands of any disturbed adolescent.
Why are these modern
weapons allowed today? Only because of a most arbitrary criterion, dear reader.
For, as I explained in my last posting, in a somewhat sarcastic manner: one
might as well accept that ICBM rockets or battle tanks are weapons whose
possession ‘shall not be infringed’. However, I have no doubt that no judge anywhere
in the US would uphold that right; and I have no doubt that even the Supreme
Court would rule that he was right to forbid private possession of nuclear
warheads. Ecco: there are weapons whose possession, even under this constitutional
amendment, the state may indeed ‘infringe’. And that is legal precedent. It
opens the door to a stricter interpretation. One that forbids all assault
weapons, all automatic and semi-automatic guns. Everything, in fact, more
powerful or destructive than a handgun or a hunting rifle.
I still had some other thoughts I wanted to elaborate on, but this post is already long enough and time is short before I set
out for my yearly Christmas destination off Madagascar. So let me just close
this discourse with a simple reasoning which I hope you will all consider:
A madman with his bare hands, may
kill one person. A madman with a knife may kill three. And a madman with a gun
kills dozens of people before he can be stopped. Yes: it is people who kill people.
But a person with a gun kills many more people than a person without one.
My apologies for a lengthy, and
awfully earnest, post. And Peace On Earth to you all!
