RSS Feed
|
|||||||||||||
|
This Week's Attitude
However, after the Court's current session ends in June and the justices render a decision, concerned voters should urge the nominees to precisely discuss the topic and, more importantly, solidify their positions. The justices' determination could be groundbreaking because the courts - Supreme or otherwise - have never specifically ruled just what the Second Amendment protects. Even with constant, ubiquitous media scrutiny, most politicians still pander to segments of voters and determine it's more practical to sidestep some issues to secure their backing. Republican John McCain doesn't discuss the issue because he is an enthusiastic supporter of the Second Amendment and the right of law-abiding citizens to own handguns. Undoubtedly, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and more than a few of its members have contributed to McCain's presidential bid. On the other hand, more liberal Democrat contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who both have preached for stronger gun control laws, particularly a ban on assault weapons, have avoided addressing the topic like the plague, obviously not wanting to dissuade supporters who may overlook their stances. The critical issue before the Court essentially comes down to the interpretation of the Second Amendment and what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote it. It's reasonable to assume, in the wake of the Revolutionary War and the limitations the British tried to impose in the colonies, that the chief purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee states protection to maintain formal, organized military units. For the umpteenth time, the Second 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 boggles the mind - well, some minds - how intelligent, reasonable people can - with a straight face - admit those words imply individual gun ownership. What the heck does individual possession of handguns - or assault weapons for that matter - have to do with the security of the state? If the Founding Fathers, who created a unique document that encompasses indispensable guidelines for a self-governing society, wanted individuals to freely obtain weapons, they would have specifically spelled it in the amendment. In fact, the "M" in Militia was probably deliberately capitalized to emphasize that reference, which came to be known as the National Guard. While it's hard to comprehend the American obsession with guns - whether they be rifles, shotguns or pistols, citizens own an estimated 100 million of 'em - it seems like some remnant of unchecked 19th century Wild West vigilantism that gives some gun owners a sense of security by having a weapon in their possession. Perhaps if the NRA had its way, every citizen would be allowed to walk around with a weapon, which could result in shootouts during heated arguments or simply over a parking spot. Hmmm, there's already been too many of those. When I was in the Army I earned an Expert Marksmanship medal the first time I fired my rifle. But, since then, I've never had a smidgen of desire to touch a firearm. Being fortunate never to have served in combat, I'll never - nor do I wish to - know what it's like to shoot at another human being. Nor would I ever go hunting because I find it unconscionable to shoot at a defenseless animal just for sport. No matter what the Supreme Court decides, it will not end the ongoing national debate, nor will it keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals, but it would establish a federal precedent that might coax state and local governments to enact and enforce stricter laws that limit gun ownership. Let's hope the Court's conservative majority strictly upholds the context of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms solely for government-sanctioned militias, not every Tom, Dick and Jane who feels safer and empowered possessing a weapon. Such an outcome would be a devastating blow to the NRA and gun nuts nationwide, but a victory for local governments to limit individual gun ownership as well as for the sanctity - and sanity - of human life.
|
for larger version       Ads have a Patent Pending. Click Here for More Information |
||||||||||||
