Aurora, Gun Control and the Second Amendment

I learned today that the gun control/2^nd Amendment/assault rifle debate, several days after the horrific events of Aurora, has formed along four basic lines:

1.       We need to do something and do it now

This call is largely from Democrats in relatively safe districts:

Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): “It’s time for Congress to act on a ban on high capacity magazines. This is no infringement on right to self-defense. Military type weapons should not be on the streets of America.”

Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY): "Large magazines, assault weapons do not need to be on the streets for the ordinary citizen. They are meant for the military. I think that the American people understand that. The problem is, politicians, legislators across this country are intimidated by the NRA and the gun manufacturers who put so much money out there to say that 'we will take you down in an election if you go against us.'" (McCarthy’s husband was killed and son seriously injured in a shooting on the Long Island Railroad in 1993.

Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL): "Do we think that an individual, any individual needs to purchase 6,000 bullets online? Do we think that any individual really needs a weapon that will shoot 100 rounds at a time? Do you need that to hunt? Do you need that for any practical purpose? Of course not and I think that most Americans actually agree with that. As soon as they introduce anything you get some 300 members of Congress, without even reading the bill voting in favor of the NRA position. It's just ridiculous. It's gone too far,"

Representative Jim Moran (D-VA): “My son went to the airing of Batman at midnight. Don't I have the freedom to know that my son can go to a movie theater without a fear for his life.  This is about freedom. It's the freedom to live securely and safely among our neighbors and friends within an advanced society. It's stunning to me that my colleagues are so soft on crime and domestic terrorism. It's all because legislative bodies across the county have been castrated, politically castrated, by the NRA.”

And, of course, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), of whom I wrote the other day, who has been forcefully calling for the President and Mr. Romney to do something now. Today, he added to his previous statements by saying: “"During the next presidential term, there will be 48,000 Americans killed with illegal guns. It seems to me not unreasonable that whoever wants to be president should tell us what they are going to do about it before we go to the ballot box."

2.      We need to do something, but now’s not the time

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), a strong gun control supporter said: “Weapons of war don't belong on the streets.  We've got to sit down and really come to grips with what is sold to the average citizen in America.” But she also said, Obama and Romney should give considerable consideration to the gun control issue “but now is a 'bad time' to push it.”

Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ): “I am a little bit disturbed by politicians who in the immediate aftermath of this type of tragedy, try to grandstand on it, and I’m not going to be one of those people. I feel awful for those families. And this is just not the appropriate time to be grandstanding about gun laws. Can we at least get through the initial grief and tragedy for these families?”

3.      The doubt we can do anything crowd

Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-CO): "This person, if there were no assault weapons available, if there were no this or no that, this guy's going to find something, right?"

Senator John McCain (R-AZ): “Everything should be looked at. But to think that somehow gun control or increased gun control is the answer, in my view that would have to be proved.”

4.      The NRA sycophants

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI): “ You simply can't keep these weapons out of the hands of sick demented individuals who want to cause harm. And when you try and do it, you restrict our freedoms.”

Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX): who said the story made him wonder, "With all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying a gun that could have stopped this guy more quickly?" (Gohmert also tied the tragedy to the "ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs.") 

So, the tragedy occurs. The talking heads talk. Nothing gets done. And then it happens again.

Of all the things I’ve heard or read over the last few days the most disturbing (Gohmert’s statements not withstanding) is this from Gallup. In polls since 1990, the swing in attitudes towards the sale of firearms has been stunning.  In 1990, 78% of respondents thought the laws should be stricter. In 2010, that number had dropped to 44%.  Do you think the NRA's influence and the fact that most of our elected officials are either mute or equivocal on the issue because of that influence has anything to do with this?

In one defense of the status quo, the argument goes that the problem is not the Constitution and the 2^nd Amendment but the changes in our society. Point well taken. But, if our society has changed shouldn't the response to that change be a re-looking at laws created over 200 years ago; laws that were written to cope with a completely different society? Our founders were brilliant; they created a Constitution that has served, and continues to serve, us well. But every once in a while the Constitution needs to be tweaked. That’s the very purpose of amendments. Perhaps it’s time to do a little tweaking.