Trump, Muskets, AR-15s, the 2nd Amendment and "NRA Mitch"

AROUND THE BLOCK

I learned…

I learned today that there is some good news and some bad news.

First, the good news.

In his first “official” statement following the horrific mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton this weekend, President Trump said, “In one voice our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy.”

(Of course, the good news has to be tempered by the fact that Trump is like the boy who pours gasoline on a fire and then yells, “fire.”)

But he did say, “condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy” and didn’t say that any gun control legislation has to be tied to “comprehensive immigration reform” as he did in his tweets on Sunday. 

(There are those who theorize that perhaps his conflation of gun control and immigration reform stems from his belief that with fewer immigrants there would be fewer targets, thus less need for guns – but that’s just a theory.)

Now, the bad news.

His solutions included the same, tired, old gun advocate tropes: more background checks, and stronger action to address mental illness, violence in the media and in video games, as well as, his words, “the perils of the internet and social media.”

And remember, as the Times reports, “the House passed back-to-back bills on firearms soon after Democrats took control, voting in February to require background checks for all gun purchasers, including those at gun shows and on the internet, and to extend waiting periods for would-be gun purchasers flagged by the existing instant-check system. They were the first significant gun control bills to clear the chamber in a quarter century.”

“Moscow Mitch” McConnell has not allowed either bill to be taken up by Senate. (Perhaps in this context he should be called “NRA Mitch” – not as alliterative but certainly appropriate.)

But, given the fact that both these gunmen, who were wearing body armor and used assault weapons with large capacity magazines, were able to slaughter 30 people and injure scores more despite almost instantaneous police response means he did not address the real “what are you going to do about it issue:” A call for legislation that immediately and unequivocally bans this kind of weaponry.

Oh yeah, I forgot the Second Amendment. We can’t ban this stuff because the Second Amendment won’t allow it.

Let’s take a look at the Second Amendment

(I’ll take a break now so that you can read this several times……….)

“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.”

(OK, I’m back. Thanks for reading the most obtuse sentence ever written by our Founding Fathers.)

So, what does this mean? 

From the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute:

“On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. 

“On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language ‘a well regulated Militia’ to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.”

And the debate* goes on – individual right or state’s right to self-defense – with the “correct” interpretation based on who controls the Supreme Court. 

(*For more on the debate, I encourage you to read the late Justice John Paul Stevens' 2018 Times op-ed, "Repeal the Second Amendment")

But wait, the Second Amendment was written in 1791. The “Arm” of choice was the musket – a single shot weapon with which the most skilled “musketeer” would take 20 seconds to load in order to get off three shots per minute. It is feasible during that 20-second loading period, members of crowd being attacked could rush the shooter, rendering him impotent (and I use that word purposely).

By contrast, an assault rifle like the AR-15 can fire between 700 to 950 rounds a minute.

So, while the debate goes on and while well-intentioned background check bills are stalled in the Senate by "NRA Mitch," the death toll continues to rise because the current “Arm” of choice is not an “Arm” but a weapon of mass destruction.

And, by the way, if we’re going ban the sale of these weapons of mass destruction, let’s also ban the sale of body armor that these civilians, that these wielders of these guns, wear to protect themselves against…right, the police that are trying to protect us from them!