Reviewing the Second Amendment

Of all the amendments to the Constitution, the one that is the most often misquoted is the Second Amendment. It clearly states:

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.

Infuriatingly, this amendment is almost exclusively quoted beginning from the word "the" after the second comma, leaving out the prerequisite reference to a well-regulated militia. One slight understandable problem is the use of the two commas. However, other than the commas, this is indisputably one sentence. The Founding Fathers were protecting the individual citizen's right to own/carry/utilize a firearm, but only those who were members of a militia, not the right of the individual citizen to own a firearm independently of a militia. The latter is much too general and carries too great a risk of accident and death. The former is much more specific and safe, particularly considering the danger posed by guns.

A larger point, in my view, is that this amendment itself needs to be amended. It is outdated and needs to reflect the fact that we no longer have militias comprised of the general citizenry, and that if a citizen desires to own a gun, that they must comply with and follow some basic safety regulations (yes imposed at the federal level). It may be a right but not without restrictions. As it is now, too often this amendment is interpreted to mean that the general public has the right to own a gun with little-to-no restrictions or regulation. In other words, just like laws in place to better insure safe driving, gun use by the general public needs to have laws in place that protect the safety of the general public.

This leads me to the NRA. I think for a president who has proven that he and his administration can handle more than one difficult issue at a time (multi-tasking), to avoid standing up to the NRA with the reinstatement of both the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban is simply allowing the NRA to intimidate the federal government. Gun violence has been a problem in the United States for a very long time, and President Clinton at least had the courage to tackle the problem head-on and with legislation. True, some members of the House and Senate lost their seats in 1994 due to their support of these very measures, but Bill Clinton did the right thing. If President Obama needs to wait a little longer before reintroducing this issue, I just encourage him to make sure he's smart about how long he waits and not to ignore the issue entirely. Prudence is one thing, but being reluctant to confront the NRA or being too afraid to tackle an extremely contentious issue is highly imprudent, unassertive, and irresponsible. This president got my vote in part by how assertive he is. If there was ever an issue that needed more assertiveness and action by our government, it is protecting our citizens against the senseless accidents and deaths caused every day by guns.

Turn it off, or take it outside! Cell phones are for private not public use

Though not a known health risk, cell phone use in public places is as much of a nuisance as smoking.

I was very slow in the purchase of a cell phone. I have an iPhone 3GS now, but the first time I used a cell phone was in 1996 in a friend’s car making a call to my mother at her home. It felt very strange to be able to call anyone from an automobile when I was so used to stopping for a pay phone. But it was handy and, now that I have owned one for many years, I can personally attest to the fact that cell phones are a predominantly positive invention. They are definitely more of a help than a hindrance. Like my first experience with a cell phone, having one in your car, for example, is, unquestionably, a huge asset, especially in an emergency.

However, I also think that, as with anything, along with a new item of technology should come responsibility with the availability of its use. Cell phones should only be used by the driver while they are at the wheel and in motion with a headset, and texting while driving should never be done. That is the largest problem with cell phones. The number of automobile accidents caused by drivers talking on their cell phones (without headsets) while they’re driving is well documented. (My mother was hit by another driver who accelerated out of an intersection without looking her direction because, as she thought she remembered, he was talking on his cell phone.) Unfortunately, cell phone reception is sometimes quite good in traffic where it is less safe.

Another, far less potentially deadly problem with cell phone use is that many people (perhaps unwittingly) violate the comfort and relative privacy of others’ by turning their private conversations into public addresses systems. It took years for public places to acknowledge and enforce smoking and non-smoking sections, and cell phone use in public places will take a similar amount of time to regulate; some public places have signs requesting that patrons not use their cell phones in their lobbies, but far more do not or do not even bother to enforce their own policy. The general public can be very resistant (and sometimes rightly so) when it comes to the idea of regulating anything, so regulation of cell phone use in public will be more tricky implement. 

Smoking is now known to cause severe health risks including death, even for non-smokers nearby (second-hand smoke); case-in-point, Dana Reeve. Though cell phones are not a known health risk (probably nil for second-hand users!), hearing someone else’s cell phone ring and their subsequent conversation in the booth, table, or area next to you, is annoying in the extreme. But, like smoking in public places, it will take equally long to prohibit.

  
I think the answer is easy. In addition to the possible regulation I suggested above with cell phones in automobiles (which is already in place in some states like New York and California), cell phone policy in public places needs to be treated in the same way as public pay phones. If you want to use your cell phone or receive a call, leave your table, group of friends, or the peopled area near you and walk outside, to the lobby, or to the area where there is/are pay phones—if any still exist!—and talk privately. This is really very simple and I think common sense. Part of this aspect of the cell phone problem is that cell phones have become too easy to use and carry around. More people own one now than not. So now even though it may appear that, “Everyone talks on their cell phone in public,” those who do talk on their cell phones in public assume that it is not bothersome to anyone. (That last sentence, and our trust in it, is not only untrue but the largest problem in our perception of using cell phones, in addition to just being plain unconscious and inconsiderate.)

An additional problem is the fallacy that if we don’t take the call at that moment we might not only miss the call but we might lose the business or not hear the personal news as quickly as we think we need it. What is not a fallacy is that the speed of life has undeniably increased which has made the invention of the cell phone practical and necessary. What is untrue is that we need to respond to the cell phone, or place a call, faster than it would take us to move somewhere where we would not force other people to listen to our conversation; sadly, I will speculate as well that some people actually enjoy broadcasting their conversations in public because it makes them feel more important.

In short, talking on a cell phone near other people in public places is rude, bad manners, and an invasion of public space. After all, a public place is just that, public. The space belongs to everyone. A phone call is private. The two do not and should not mix. Just because a phone is not constrained by being connected to a wire and connected to a wall doesn’t mean that the sudden ease of a wireless phone should make us forget the boundary between public and private. There are other, more “thorny” and sensitive issues involving the distinction between public and private. This would be one issue regarding their separation that would be far easier to regulate, observe, and practice.