On the epidemic of mass shootings

I agree completely with the late and former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in his article "The Right To Bear Arms" in Parade Magazine (January 14, 1990, page 4).

http://www.guncite.com/burger.html

I have other thoughts too, beginning with an attempt at some analysis of the amendment.

First, the Second Amendment is frequently misquoted. The entire amendment is one sentence of four clauses separated by three commas. Here is the complete Second Amendment:

"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."

The frequent misquote leaves out the first two clauses, as well as the final clause. Here is the incomplete, but more often-quoted version:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

The complete amendment above clearly specifies that those particular citizens assigned to "a well-regulated militia" have "the right...to keep and bear arms," not each and every citizen. Since the amendment is one sentence (albeit four clauses), the first clause applies to the entire amendment. The word "state" in the second clause refers to the state "militias" of the first clause. The word "people" in the third clause refers back to those in the state "militia," not all people, connecting the third clause with the first clause. The phrase "shall not be infringed" refers of course to the phrase "the right of the `people`" which (following the algebraic Transitive Property of Equality http://www.mathwords.com/t/transitive_property.htm) also refers back to the word "militia" in the first clause, the prerequisite clause of the amendment. So all four clauses of the amendment reference the first clause, "A well-regulated militia."

Second, this amendment needs to be amended again, or better, completely rewritten to reflect and remedy the issues involving guns today, providing restrictions along with the acknowledged right. The amendment is also written somewhat awkwardly compared to writing today (the one sentence of four clauses above), which is part of the reason for the confusion in its interpretation. It was written in the style of the time which was likely influenced by the erudite education of the "framers" of the Constitution. In addition, we are far beyond colonial times, so the focus on the state "militia" no longer applies. But it is perfectly reasonable that ordinary citizens should be permitted to lawfully own a simple gun. However, since guns in general are among the most dangerous and deadly of the human inventions, it is more than perfectly reasonable that gun ownership should come with severe restrictions/regulations. The need for tougher restrictions are for two reasons: 1) the lethal power of a gun, and 2) the sheer ease and likelihood with which a gun can be lethal. Protection against the danger and destruction that guns are designed for should greatly outweigh the right to unrestricted ownership; and by anyone, including law enforcement and the military (restriction laws for law enforcement and the military should be reexamined as well, although differently than ordinary citizens; what those differences should be I don`t know).

For example, one combined amendment for ordinary citizens should be a reimplementation of the now-expired Assault weapons ban and the Brady Law. The first is obvious. The latter requires a 5-day-waiting-period for the purchase of any gun to give time for a thorough background check (I actually agree with Chief Justice Burger`s suggestion of 10 days instead of 5 days which would allow for a much more thorough check (unless, as he notes, proof could be shown for urgent need so the background check could expedited.). A 5 or 10 day waiting period would also put the onus on the purchaser to plan ahead responsibly. Prudent responsibility should trump convenience (I doubt if any of the surviving family members of the victims of mass shootings would have sympathy for someone who complained of being inconvenienced by waiting for a 5 or 10-day thorough background check. Those families might suggest an even longer waiting period.) Background checks for firearms should be the most rigorous of any personal inquiry. There should be little-to-no privacy plea permitted to own and wield a gun. If you want one, you have to submit to the most rigorous examination or your personal and legal history (including criminal and mental history). In my opinion, there is a civic obligation, expectation, and consequence to owning a gun of any kind. Guns are tools with the power of destruction and death. Loss of more personal and legal privacy in order to protect society from the unintended consequesnces and mishaps of the gun owner should be expected. The worst has to be assumed and prepared for because of the gun's lethal power.

Another amendment might be, as Burger points out, that there be specified firearms that the average citizen would not be permitted to purchase under any circumstances, regardless of a background check, like automatic and assault weapons (the Brady Law and the ban on assault weapons during the Clinton administration were both allowed to expire under the administration of President George W. Bush). Again, the reason is the ease with which the more destructive guns wreak lethal carnage. Those guns could include any gun other than a simple, non-automatic handgun or rifle. No ordinary citizen needs more than one to six bullets in any one gun for the right and ability to protect themselves. All automatic firearms should be illegal to own by the general public, and severely restricted by law enforcement and the military. The four branches of our national military and each state National Guard are our modern versions of the colonial/state militias. They are also professionals trained to safely and effectively use the more dangerous variety of manufactured and sophisticated weaponry, so those entities could be allowed automatic and assault weapons. But those individuals would be subjected to the same rigorous and revised background checks as everyone else; law enforcement and the military personnel are human beings too...fallible and vulnerable to unforseen human consequences. The average citizen, however, is comparatively untrained in the safe use of guns, so all the more reason for the heaviest restrictive gun laws to be imposed on the general public.

Finally, because we have a strong national military, this issue is no longer about protecting the citizen against the government through the right to own a gun. That was more of an immediate concern in colonial times (or at least worry from the example of former British rule). We should be well past the paranoia that our government is a tyrannical entity in democratic disguise, unlawfully imprisoning its citizens at whim who then can`t defend themselves because they either don`t have all necessary firearms to resist the random and fallacious arrests or the government has confiscated their weapons; that is a much more rare (and illegal) occurrence now in this country. This issue should now simply be about protecting the safety of the general public from the lethally destructive power of guns. While it is true that it takes a person (or some intelligent physical force) to pull a trigger (hence the erroneous argument "Guns don`t kill, people do"), as I stated above, the ease of the resultant destruction is indisputable and the reason that guns need to carry much tougher regulations.

Clearly, the pattern of mass shootings in the United States demonstrates that we as a country are doing a deplorable job of protecting our fellow innocent citizens from injury and death by guns. These mass shootings have become an epidemic. Epidemics need to be actively addressed and eradicated, or at the very least, greatly minimized.