Scalia, the 2nd Amendment and Dead Babies.

By now, most everyone is probably familiar with the Newtown CT shooting that took place Friday morning.  While details will still come to light, initial reports are that there are around 27 people dead, 20 of whom are children.  The reports also indicate that up to 4 weapons were involved, including 2 relatively powerful handguns, and a "Bushmaster" assault rifle. 

There have been and will be outpourings of grief, anger, and, incredibly, disbelief.  The two words used in almost all the coverage to date are "unimaginable" and "unthinkable."  While these sentiments are perhaps understandable, they aren't quite accurate.  It is all too thinkable and imaginable in a society in which there are approximately 80 guns for every 100 citizens.

The National Rifle Association and its "gun lobby" barely need to spend money anymore to pass their agendas.  Politicians in this country are so afraid of "blow back" from the supporters of this organization that reasonable dialogue can no longer be had on this issue.

The case in point is the past presidential election.  While the Democrats and the Obama administration have done nothing to restrict the ownership of guns, and in fact, have presided over a repeal on the Federal assault weapon ban, much anti-Obama sentiment focused on his "plan to take our guns." The Saturday Night Live skit aired during the election hit the nail in both parties' planks when it had the candidates respond to a question about what they would do about gun control: "Nothing," and "I will also do nothing," respectively.

Long-term studies in Australia and Austria have shown marked decreases in gun violence in those societies after the implementation of strict gun control.  Law enforcement organizations have repeatedly come out in favor of stricter gun control laws.

And yet, the gun lobby continues to push laws that would allow employees to bring guns to the workplace (and leave them in their cars,) for the reason that "they have a commute and may need to protect themselves."  Really.  Just in case you need to fire a warning shot across the bow of that Prius that looks like it might cut you off.  They have been responsible for the expansion of the "Castle Doctrine" which originally allowed deadly force to be used in one's own home, if one's life were under "imminent threat."  Now, more than 20 states have either passed or are considering legislation similar to Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law," which allows one to use deadly force without having to attempt to avoid it first.  This is the law often cited in the Treyvon Martin case. 

As a fairly staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights, and being generally in favor of an expansive reading of them, I have personally wavered on the issue of gun control.  However, as evidence continues to pile up for the seemingly obvious proposition that the more guns there are, the more people get shot, I've done some deep thinking on the issue. 

Justice Antonin Scalia, a strict constructionist, said recently that courts should look to the words themselves and their meanings when written when interpreting the Constitution.  Well, the 2nd Amendment reads:

"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."

It is the only one of the ten amendments that make up the Bill Of Rights that mentions regulation.  The first Amendment, in contrast, states that "Congress shall make no law" abridging the freedoms of speech, press and assembly.   The 5th Amendment provides, in pertinent part, that "no person shall be held to answer..." for various crimes "without due process of law."  No mention of regulation, these are, in the language of the constitution, more or less "absolute rights."  And yet, our courts have continuously found that there are limits to these rights when it is necessary for the good of society. 

Still, the Gun Lobby screams about the 2nd Amendment rights of its members and individuals cry that the government can have their guns when they "pry them from our cold dead hands."  It seems to me, that if we take Justice Scalia's comment to heart, we should look at the words "Well-regulated," as contained in the 2nd Amendment.  The situation concerning firearms is the farthest thing from well-regulated.  It seems to me that if Congress wished, it could regulate  that firearms only be held by those who belong to a government-sanctioned military organization.  I don't know that such an extreme measure would be wise policy, but it would behoove our nation to look to Europe and Scandinavia for the type of regulation that tends to suppress firearms violence. 

These questions should not be raised only when terrible mass tragedies strike, as such are still relatively rare.  It is the everyday shootings, accidental and intentional, that kill and maim hundreds every week, and that do not get more than a 2 minute mention on television, or a short column in the paper.  It is these victims, young and old, that should be pressing a real discussion of gun control in this country, not knee jerk "pry it from my cold dead hands" rhetoric. If we could do that, perhaps crimes such as this, while not disappearing completely, may actually become "unthinkable."