Guns, Guns, and more Guns. I keep trying to get
my head around this controversial issue. What do we mean today by guns? What
did the Founding Fathers mean by arms in 1791? What did “the right to bear arms”
mean when they wrote the Second Amendment? “To bear” means what one individual
could carry, which in 1791 meant a musket or handgun, along with black powder
and bullets. The speed with which one could load and fire a round depended on
how fast one could insert the powder and bullet, I’m guessing about twenty
seconds between each firing. The Second Amendment is such a slippery little
devil, one for which the writers laboriously chose each word and comma to make
sure their meaning was absolutely clear. “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.” A militia then meant a citizen group which
could be brought together to repel invaders or to fight against any leader who
might try to enslave its citizenry. There was no standing army back then
because the framers of the Constitution feared that the president or leader of
the nation might use a supporting army to take over the government and the
people. Such a militia would arm themselves and in time of need come together temporarily
in emergencies or to defend the country. Thus, back then it was not only a
right to bear arms but a duty for each male citizen to have his weapons handy
in case they were needed for bringing
this well-regulated militia together. Today, we have a standing army as well as
the other armed forces to do the defending, backed up by each state’s National
Guard units. In 1791, the Founding Fathers couldn’t have envisioned the kinds
of weapons one could carry or the speed with which those weapons could be
fired.
Why do any of us now want to own firearms? I can think of
only three reasons: for hunting game, for sports shooting and marksmanship, and
for defending ourselves and our homes against bad guys, and for that we have rifles,
shotguns, and handguns. Gun proponents argue, “If you take away our right to
have AR15’s, only the bad guys will have them and how will we defend ourselves
against them?” That’s why we have good guys who are allowed to have assault
weapons. We call them cops. Gun proponents argue, “Guns don’t kill people;
people kill people.” The counter argument is that people kill people in any
number of different ways, but killing someone with a knife or a club or a bow
and arrow pretty much limits the number of people killed at any one time. That
limit with an AR15 seems to be somewhere just under a hundred before the
perpetrator is caught or killed, and the perp doesn't even need to be a marksman. He just aims it in the general direction of those he wants to kill and pulls the trigger. And, yes, a car or truck driven into a crowd
would kill quite a few. But banning cars and trucks is impossible. Others, who
think we should have even more guns than we now have, say, “What’s the best way
to stop a bad guy with a gun? A good guy with a gun.” In other words, as in the
old West, we should all carry guns either concealed or openly to use whenever
someone draws down intending to kill someone specific or kill large numbers
randomly. High Noon, here we come. It seems to me we might have bullets flying all over the place with
all kinds of people being accidentally shot. And then we have President Trump’s
solution for stopping school shootings—to arm qualified teachers and
administrators to protect their students. First, where would schools find
enough teachers and administrators who were qualified in the use of guns? And where would these
guns be kept? I can see it now: The sound of gunfire alerts all teachers and students
that a bad guy is somewhere in the school. These teacher guns would have to be
so securely locked up that no student could ever get to them. The teacher would
have to find the key to unlock the gun drawer and then unlock the box inside
the drawer, all the while hearing the sound of approaching gunfire. Would that
teacher be nervous? You bet. This proposed scenario makes absolutely no sense.
Would we be infringing upon the rights of our citizenry if we
disallowed gun ownership by any and all? I don't think any of those who wrote this amendment intended guns should be available to absolutely everyone. Would we be infringing if we disallowed ownership to anyone, say, under 21, or anyone with a history of mental instability, or convicted
felons? And why not ban everyone from owning semi-automatic rifles like the
AR15, which can very easily and inexpensively (but illegally) be converted into a fully
automatic rifle and modified to hold a clip that can spit out as many as 100
rounds in less than a minute? Why would anyone need that many rounds fired at
that speed if we were hunting game or shooting at a target? The AR15 and other
rifles like it were designed as military weapons, not sporting guns. The
capacity and speed made it an ideal weapon to kill as many of the enemy in as
short a time as possible, but for hunting game, sports shooting, or defending
our homes we don’t need that kind of weapon. Why is the NRA so adamant about
protecting the sale and use of such weapons under the guise of protecting the Second Amendment? Almost every motive for almost any
action comes down to money. The sales of guns of all kinds generate huge
profits for gun manufacturers. Does money also motivate the NRA? Should we
allow a lobby group like the NRA to so control our elected officials that we
will never see any curbing of gun violence and mass murders? The kids all over
the country who are now protesting the government’s lack of action about gun
control have it right. And many of them will soon be old enough to vote. Too
bad they weren’t old enough about a year ago.
Countdown: I
might just as easily have called this a metronome. Countdown sounds too much
like a Doomsday clock approaching a personal midnight. But a metronome keeps a tempo that
can be made faster or slower. A metronome better describes how my days are
going. The more things I have to do during the day, the slower the tempo. The
fewer things I have to do during the day, the faster it goes back and forth. This
illness has pretty much confined me to the house, so my activities are limited.
I’ve found that during this two weeks of feeling not so good, my days go really
fast. I’m now sleeping almost ten hours a night. I get up and do my juice and
coffee, a piece or two of toast, read the paper. Bang! It’s now noon. Then I
may nap a bit. Then I may write a blog and a countdown or read a book. Then another nap. Then
it’s time for a cocktail before we decide what really simple meal we may have
for dinner. Bang! It’s now 5:30 and time for the Nightly News with Lester Holt.
Then on to the tv shows we love. Then, Bang! It’s time to go to bed. Another
really short day has passed. I saw my cardiologist a few days ago. She told me,
assured me, that when I was finally done with this virus I would regain most of
the energy I had just a month or so ago. That was really good news because I want my days to slow down, to lengthen. I miss our trips to see a movie or our several dinners out each week, even
my trips to the grocery store just to get out of here for a while. I want my
metronome to slow down. I want my countdown to slow down. I’m not quite ready
to meet my maker. I may not rage against the coming of the night, but I
also won’t just lie down to a peaceful death in the night. I still have too
many things to do.