The 2nd Amendment does not need the NRA to protect it
Carl Bouthillette
Vistage Chair | Executive Coach | Corporate and Nonprofit | Creating a legacy of impact, commercializing purpose-driven innovations in health
The Great Defender it is not
The NRA (National Rifle Association) positions itself as the great defender of the 2nd Amendment. On its website, Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice-President, urges us to “Help fight the socialist wave.” If he is referring to American society, individuals, and values, then the NRA is proposing to fight the majority of us, to fight the will of the people.
The NRA messages that any discussion, research, or proposed gun law restrictions are an attack on our right to bear arms, an attack on our constitution. This approach is narrow-minded and I propose that their current core mission is irrelevant. Our forefathers were smart and thoughtful individuals who believed in a system of checks and balances, that no one individual or group should have ultimate power to control any part of our society or government. The 2nd Amendment is protected by the people, for the people, by our constitutional checks and balances; it does not need the NRA. The NRA is a parasite, surviving on the goodwill of our 2nd Amendment. If the NRA would like to participate in thoughtful discussion, great; otherwise, time to cut them loose.
What does the right to bear “arms” mean anyway
The 2nd Amendment was ratified in December 1791 and says: “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.” I am not a constitutional lawyer or historian, however, the way I read this certainly leaves room for sensible gun laws that can help prevent unnecessary gun violence without infringing on our rights; more on that topic a bit later. And does “the right to bear arm,” mean “ANY” type of arm? Does an AR-15 qualify? Did our founding fathers mean this type of weapon to be available to the masses, to anyone able to reach the trigger? The NRA likes to point to automated weapons like the “Puckle Gun” (a crew-operated 1700s “machine gun”[1]) and the “Belton Gun” (early design machine gun never mass produced[2]) as examples from that area - this totally misses the point. The issue is that some weapons are more dangerous than others, and access to these should be controlled.
We have a Gun Violence problem in the US
The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1. Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK.
There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant.[3]
There were 64 school shootings in 2015, according to a dedicated campaign group set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Connecticut in 2012. Those figures include occasions when a gun was fired but no one was hurt.[4]
And as we know now, these statistics and the people impacted by them have only gotten worse.
NRA is right about one thing – guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill
This is one of the NRA’s messages and they are right, people kill people, not guns. That does not exonerate us from looking at how people are killed, how access to guns impacts gun violence and overall violence. The NRA and their donations to elected officials distort our democratic due process. This is a bigger problem that stems from “Citizens United[5]” but that’s a discussion topic for another day. We should go back to 1 vote = 1 equal vote; we, the people, need to take back control of our democracy from large corporations, mega-donors, and lobbyists.
Time to address the underlying challenges that lead to gun violence
Gun violence is complex and multi-factorial. A controversial subject because gun control advocates, led by the NRA, have taken a do or die position that is divisive and positioned as an attack on our 2nd Amendment. It does not have to be so, and I would welcome the NRA, and gun right supporters to participate in the discussion. I support the 2nd Amendment and I think we can reduce gun violence by adopting a thoughtful approach to this problem. Activities should include gun violence research, broader access to behavioral health, addressing bullying in all contexts, controlling access to “arms,” requiring gun training, and common sense regulations. The Supreme Court and our checks and balance will make sure that the intent of our founding fathers is respected. Making schools a militarized zone is not “the” solution. It didn’t work in Florida; there was an armed guard on-site.
Here is an example of reasonable regulations on evolving technologies. Airplanes did not exist when the Constitution was written. Today, you need certified training and a license to operate an aircraft – why, because it’s a great mode of transportation but without proper training, regulations and licensing, anyone could jump in a plane and cause havoc in the sky and on the ground with harm to self and others. Why can we have the same for guns? An AR-15 is a weapon of mass destruction; is it too much to ask that anyone wanting to own or use one have the proper training so they don’t accidently shoot me, my family, my neighbors because they sprayed bullets all over the place because they’ve never been trained?
Another favorite line of the NRA is – “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” As I’ve just noted above, I am not suggesting banning the use of all weapons. I’m suggesting we can have sensible laws that require training so gun owners hit the right target, whether it is for practice or self-defense.
It’s time we elect representative that have the spine to tackle this issue. If we don’t, shame on us. I’m sure the next generation of voters will; they’re already making their voices heard. The status quo is unacceptable, time to act.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
[3] https://www.shootingtracker.com/Main_Page
[4] https://everytownresearch.org/school-shootings/
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Owner/CEO at Smart Road Technology, LLC
6 年All I know: Our country started as a wild, untamed country ruled by the British with an iron hand. Our forefathers were fed up of the Kings exploitation of his subjects in the New Land. That’s when the American Revolution started. The British soldiers felt that the Colonists fought unfair by hiding behind trees and hit-and-run tactics. The Rag-tag band of colonists finally won the battle and our country with our Constitution full of checks and balances. (I must say, like today, amid many disagreements and roadblocks.) Our Second Amendment has prevented foreign invasions from occurring for the most part. Japan had an Admiral who felt that invading America was a bad idea because there was a “gun behind every tree.” Have you ever noticed that every foreign country, city and village that was invaded had a no-gun-law. Their citizens were rounded up, killed, raped, held hostage or worse; all because they couldn’t defend themselves from government, military or terrorist militants. Look to Europe, do they still have deaths due to guns? Yes. They have “no-gun” laws. When it come to America’s gun issue, Congress needs to use common sense. That however is not the fare with extremes in Washington and America in general. Extremism is not common sense; it’s a one-sided solution. I believe Carl is correct on many issues. I believe his comments could be a good starting point for a common sense solution our gun issue. Tom
Branch Manager at Hometown Lenders, Woodstock AL
6 年If you want to look for intent, look at contemporary writings. In addition to numerous opinions, President Madison wrote a letter to a private shipping company that stated the 2nd amendment was all the authorization they needed to add naval frigates to their fleet. That's the contemporary equivalent to the president telling the owner of a tanker ship that he can have fully armed AGEIS cruisers and destroyers.
This is so true. We need to end gun violence.
Contracts Coordinator - at Amentum
6 年The truth is that if we were truly following how the 2nd amendment was intended then the wealthiest in our local communities would be providing tanks, artillery, and rocket launchers for the local militia to protect the local community. The musket, Kentucky Long rifle and smooth bore cannon were the best military weapons available at the time and were all owned by private individuals in the early years of the USA. That is what is required of a well regulated militia, the best the individual can afford to defend themselves and their local community. It is time we quit blaming the tool (gun in this case) and look to actual cause of the violent behavior. Did you know that 95% of all mass shooting perpetrators were from single parent households? The press does not want to talk about that and the psychological impact that has on young minds. Males raised in single parent households per the research show higher tendencies for violence and have a significantly higher incarceration rate that males from 2 parent households. Until we deal with the root cause of the violence it will continue no matter how many tools you ban.
Digital Health & Product Management Leader
6 年Thank you for the thoughtful writing