Predictably, I had to leave out much, even key arguments, to consolidate this Op Ed piece on Gun Control for publication in the June 4, 2022 Palm Beach Post. The online version invited readers’ comments and I was astonished by the personal vitriol it generated, just more evidence of our broken country. All those comments were shielded by anonymity.
While the Constitution’s 2nd amendment gives its citizens the right to bear arms, it has to be open to interpretation and refinement as times change. With the radical metamorphosis of the “arms” of the 18th century, its definition (and its original purpose) should have been steadily narrowed; otherwise, at its most absurd extreme, munitions manufacturers could be selling tanks, bazookas, you name it at your local gun shop. Meanwhile, that same Constitution gives States inherent "police power" to protect public health and safety. One would think that those who do not carry guns should have the “freedom” to live without threats from those who do carry guns.
The freedom concept is not too far removed from one that pertains to tobacco. Until the full impact of being exposed to second-hand smoke became well known, nonsmokers essentially had no rights. Smokers “lost” their “freedom” to smoke in public once the tobacco industry lost its grip on the narrative it controlled. Things must change when public health and safety are demonstrably at risk. Since Columbine more than 300,000 students have experienced or witnessed gun violence at school. It is time for our children no longer have to fear attending school, as well as their parents for sending them.
My article makes the point of comparing gun registration to automobile registration and regulation. Both instruments are potentially dangerous and laws governing their ownership and use are needed. Absurd say the gun lobbyists. But is it?
Imagine an alternative universe where automobiles were not invented until the last twenty years. These same people would be arguing that their “freedom” is being curtailed having to register vehicles, getting licenses, being tested, requiring them to obey traffic laws. Having government oversee gun sales would also control how many one person could own without being declared a dealer (as it is with autos), and therefore be subjected to another level of scrutiny. Mass shooters have a tendency to have arsenals, owning more than one gun and in some cases huge collections. Red flag!
The tired argument against the foregoing is it doesn’t stop the “bad” guys and that it would not immediately eliminate mass shootings. Agreed! But over time, the mandate of registration, with laws governing the consequences of the failure to register, report sales to another person, etc. is a more permanent solution. Australia had a successful buyback program for guns. Buy them back, no questions asked, putting a premium on assault weapons, banning the purchase of the same. Anyone possessing such a weapon after the moratorium or selling one would be breaking the law.
Expensive, yes, but it must start sometime, or we will be having a new Memorial Day for school children. Are their lives worth discarding for the “freedom” to own assault weapons?
YET…Senate Republicans have already said that they will not consider the regulations experts think are central to stopping mass shootings: an assault weapons ban such as we had until 2004, limits on ammunition magazines, and expansions of background checks to cover private gun sales are all off the table. They also say an age limit of 21 to purchase an assault-type rifle like that AR-15 is unlikely. – Heather Cox Richardson, June 7, 2022 “Letters from An American”
