“A Reasonable Proposal” Editorial 17 January 2013. The Garrett County, Maryland REPUBLICAN Newspaper:

While President Obama's proposed gun legislation is clearly facing an uphill battle with Congress, not to mention the National Rifle Association, the three major components of his package seem reasonable, and do not appear to be a serious challenge to, or outright snubbing of, the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The three pieces of Obama's proposal are: the introduction of criminal background checks on all gun sales, the renewal of the ban on military assault weapons, and a ban on high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing ammunition.

So what is the big deal about background checks? These are done routinely for various reasons, such as employment or when applying to work in almost any capacity with children. One of the NRA's claims is that not enough is being done to identify and treat mentally ill persons who end up with weapons, which is probably a fact. Would not such a background check help immensely with that identification, in addition to determining whether or not the individual has a criminal background?

The second piece will likely be the toughest to enact, since it is viewed by pro-gun folks as an attempt to "take away our guns!" But as noted over and over, assault-style weapons are unnecessary in nearly every circumstance – certainly for hunting purposes. And if the Second Amendment affords us the right to own assault weapons, then should it not follow that private citizens should be permitted to own bazookas and mortars?

For similar reasons, the third piece seems reasonable. Having the capability of rapidly firing 100 shots or more with a gun is unnecessary, and there is no question that armor-piercing bullets are "needed" only to kill persons wearing bullet-proof protection – usually law enforcement officials.

The claim by some gun enthusiasts is that they feel they must be armed in the event of an attempted government take over. [Chuckle.] If the government would ever make that decision, no private arsenal of any kind or size would be enough to stop tanks, flame throwers, drone missiles, etc.

Using the most recent figures available, among 75 nations the United States ranks 10th in the number of firearm-related deaths per 100,000 population. Among those ranked ahead of us are the highly unstable, Third World nations of Guatemala, Colombia, El Salvador, and Swaziland.

For the purposes of comparison, it is striking that the number of murders by firearms (not counting suicides) in the U.S. in 2009 was 9,146, while the number for Great Britain, where there is fairly rigid gun control, was 648. Since Britain's population is 1/5 that of U.S., this is equivalent to 48 times fewer murders than in the U.S.

It is only fair to point out that the rate of gun murder in the U.S. is at its lowest point since at least 1981. The high point was in 1993. However, non-fatal gun injuries from assaults increased last year for the third straight year, and that rate is the highest since 2008.

Regardless of the falling rate of gun murders, when innocent children are among those being slaughtered, the president and Congress absolutely must act to change things.

The Words & Grammar of the Second Amendment -- Take 2

Does the Second Amendment really give Americans an absolute right to automatic weapons? 

Surely we can all agree that the Framers of the Constitution used language carefully. And that the Framers never imagined the right to bear arms as empowering sociopathic individuals to use assault weapons because of the urgings of their private, horrific demons.

Let’s look beyond the 14 last words of the Amendment –  “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” We’ve heard those 14 words a lot lately.

What about the Amendment’s first 13 words? “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”

First look at the key terms:

·      Regulated: operating under laws and rules.


·      Militia: armed citizens acting together under the control of law or constituted authority.

·      Security: safety.

·      Free State: a political body governed by the will of its people.

Clear enough: These opening words emphasize rules and laws, constituted authority, defense of the American nation from external threats, and safety. They speak of collective behavior, not individual behavior. They say nothing about hunting, protection from home invaders, vigilantism, or even sportsmanship. 

Now consider the grammar of these 13 words. They constitute an absolute. The Framers studied grammar in school, so they understood this old-fashioned form. They knew that starting a sentence with an absolute emphasizes it. They also knew that an absolute answers the question When, why and under what conditions is the main clause true?

Maybe the Amendment would be clearer if it were expressed as a Q and A:

·      Question: When and under what conditions should “the right of the people to keep and bear arms . . . not be infringed”?

·      Answer: If or when “a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state.”

·      Question: Why should “the right of the people to keep and bear arms . . . not be infringed”?

·      Answer: Because “a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state.”

In other words: If or when America’s safety needs defending, then Americans bearing arms must be organized, trained, and regulated.

This close reading of the Second Amendment persuades me that the Framers envisioned the right to bear arms as a means to insure America’s defense by a citizen army. I believe that the Framers did not mean to empower anyone to go armed anywhere, anytime, with little or no regulation. Nor did they intend us to place arms and live ammunition in our schools, theaters, places of worship, and elsewhere that Americans gather for peaceful purposes. 

To me this is absolutely clear.