A year has passed. The outrage has subsided. The public outcry for change has faded. But the slain are still deceased; the wounded are still trying to recover and lives and families have been damaged forever.
However, virtually nothing is being accomplished in order to actually change the current situation. In our world of instant messaging and around-the-clock news coverage, it seems as though matters which should command our attention for a considerable time, are lost in a matter of weeks.
The shootings in Tucson on Jan. 8, 2011 have, very unfortunately, faded from the national spotlight. There is occasionally some recollection of this tragic event, such as when Congresswoman Giffords, whose recovery is beyond miraculous, made a surprise visit to Capitol Hill to cast a vote in the debt-ceiling debacle a few months back.
I believe, however, that we seem to keep missing a crucial point in the waning debate of gun control versus gun rights. The ultra-conservatives of the far right always seem to invoke the Constitution and their wrong-headed beliefs as to what the Founding Fathers meant in that document. I find their interpretation of this document, in relation to the ownership of weapons to be mind-numbingly ignorant. What I find exceptionally distasteful is the propensity of this group to engage in "Cafeteria Constitutionalism," wherein they are all for some parts, as long as those sections are interpreted in the manner of which they approve, and would rather turn a blind eye to other sections of the Constitution, of which they would rather not speak for fear of coming into conflict with their narrow, parochial views.
Amendment II
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.
What did the Founding Fathers mean by the above? What is the interpretation of this amendment, from a late 1700's perspective? For those who have studied history, these questions should not be difficult to answer. The answer can be readily seen in the War of 1812. This country had no large, standing army and feared that, if attacked by another country we would need all of the weapons and militia possible in order to defend ourselves. At that time, this justification for the Second Amendment was very rational and defensible. Today, it is obviously not so and really has not been so since the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848. The "...regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" argument does not hold.
The Second Amendment, taken in the context of 1791 and 2011 must be different. While having known for years that our government is not prone to the use of "common sense," I still rather like that concept. In 1791, the weapons used by most owners were of a single shot, muzzle-loading type, most of which still required a flintlock and flash pan for ignition of the gun powder. Even by the Civil War era, the standard weapon of both armies remained a muzzle loader, with the added technology of a percussion cap, paper cartridge and rifled barrel. A well trained soldier, during the Civil War, could be counted upon to get off three shots per minute.
Generally, the overwhelming benefit of gun ownership for many, during the late 1700's and through decades later, was having those weapons to put food on the table. Today, most of us are more prone to go to a grocery store. It just seems a bit easier. However today, if one really does want to hunt, particularly larger game, what type of firearm is necessary? Most states permit some type of high-powered rifle. Some, in the flatlands of the Midwest, restrict hunters to shotguns loaded with deer slugs, fearing that bullets fired from a high-powered rifle will miss, travel forever across the flatlands and hit some unintended target. What is not necessary for hunting larger game in this country is a semi-automatic assault rifle. I do not pretend to know much of anything about hunting larger animals; however, I have never heard of an instance when a group of deer, when under fire, formed into line of battle, yelled "fix antlers" and then advanced upon the hunter at the double quick. From what I have seen and heard, they usually skedaddle.
For those, who think that their ownership of guns protects them from their own government, it would be best to pull your head out of your rear. If you are paranoid enough to believe that there will be a military coup in this country, do you really believe that you and several other fools armed with shotguns, handguns and rifles will be able to take on the United States military with their aircraft, drones and armored vehicles? You are not Patrick Swayze and, if nobody pointed it out to you, Red Dawn was a really bad movie.
Of course, here in Arizona, it seems that ignorance knows no bounds in regard to controlling firearms.
This mind-numbing ignorance can be seen in the fall raffle sponsored by the Pima County G.O.P (Goofy, Outlandish, Pinheads), which stated you could "help Pima GOP get out the vote and maybe help yourself to a new Glock .45." You could also win, "three 12-round magazines, adjustable grips and a case."
But, then again, what could one expect, when the Arizona Legislature, within four months of the tragedy in Tucson, decides to adopt an "official state gun?" It is incomprehensible to believe that any state, anywhere, needs to have an official state gun, for any reason. The reason is that the Colt 45, single-action revolver is an iconic image of the Old West. Buncombe, I say. Having taught U.S. history for 16 years, I know better.
The good old days really were not very damn good at all. In regard to the Colt 45, possibly the members of the Arizona State Legislature should make the trek to Tombstone, if they are really into the Old West. While there, they could even stop at Boot Hill and peruse the tombstones, so as to see what this iconic weapon did for those who lived at that time. Possibly the legislators should have done such research before voting to allow guns into bars. Some of my favorites from the grave placards are:
- John Hicks, 1879. Hicks was shot by Jeremiah McCormick, superintendent of the Lucky Cuss Mine. A saloon Brawl.
- Hancock, shot, 1879. Shot by John Ringo when he made a disparaging remark about some woman.
- Johnnie Wilson. Shot by King. Two gunmen's discussion of the fastest way to draw, ended here.
- Killeen. Shot by Frank Leslie, 1880. Results of a disagreement over Killeen's wife. Leslie married the widow.
- Chas. Helm. Shot, 1882. Shot by Wm. McCauley. Two hot-tempered ranchers, who disagreed over the best way to drive cattle, fast or slow.
- James Hickey, 1881. Shot by Wm. Clayborne
He was shot in the left temple by Clayborne for his over-insistence that they drink together.
Ah, those were the good old days!
Once again, invoking that waning philosophy of common sense, I would suggest that our government ban the sale and ownership of semi-automatic assault weapons. These weapons serve no practical purpose for the common citizenry. Pass legislation that strives to have better background checks, inclusive of an appropriate waiting period before the weapon is given over, and mandates the registration of all handguns.
That for which I am calling may be difficult to achieve, for it is a return to the use of common sense. Some say it is dead. For the benefit of our country and its people, I do so hope that they are wrong.
Mark Neish lives in Sahuarita and holds a doctorate degree in education administration from Kansas State University and his teaching certificiate from the University of Nebraska. He has served as a principal at high schools in Arizona, Idaho and North Carolina.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 5:06 pm on Sun, Jan 8, 2012.
Wow....certain commenters are gonna love you....a "doctorate degree from Kansas State University and a High School teacher and Principal in Idaho, North Carolina and Arizona" going after the gun-loving, ignorant, "Cafeteria Constitutionalists" dragging their knuckles all over Pima County.
As a History teacher, you of all people should know that Pima County, Arizona...all of America is a Democratic Republic. If the majority of the Citizens of America want to abolish the Second Amendment to the Constitution all they have to do is vote for it. Since they haven't and the Supreme Court has ruled that "well regulated Militia" is so broad and ambiguous that it could mean anything and everything to anybody or everybody.
Looks like you are stuck with us. Time to go eat some deer meat chili beans and watch my hunting shows on the Versus Channel.
onerebel posted at 6:31 pm on Sun, Jan 8, 2012.
Mark Neish States,"The ultra-conservatives of the far right always seem to invoke the Constitution and their wrong-headed beliefs as to what the Founding Fathers meant in that document. I find their interpretation of this document, in relation to the ownership of weapons to be mind-numbingly ignorant."
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
George Washington
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..."
-- Samuel Adams
Obviously Mr. Neish is to full of himself, and busy looking down his nose at us, to actually check any of the MANY quotes from our Founding Fathers to know how and why they felt arms were so important. Unlike Mr. Neish the founders felt we should have the guts to fight if our Government ever tried to strong arm us knowing that would stand as a strong deterrent against such a move. So Mr. Neish if you don't have the courage to fight for our Liberty then lie down and except your fate, so you'll be out of the way of those of us that do !
Rich posted at 6:51 pm on Sun, Jan 8, 2012.
You have no sense of history. and I love the degree: "a doctorate degree in education administration" is that above an advanced degree in fingernail painting? A doctorate is a PhD in an academic subject (Sorry actually having one warps me a bit on the subject). In any case, the 'people' had just gotten the shaft from a bunch of politicians but had, nonetheless defeated the most powerful military force on Earth, how? With the gun over their hearth (and if truth be told the second largest naval fleet in the world, but most people at the time didn't know that). Do you really think they'd let bunch of Virginia planters and Yankee Traders disarm them? That was the context, the reality. And that is the reason for the amendment. And that is the character of a people, a diverse bunch of mongrels from every place on the Earth who only have a 'national identity' because they have 'a gun over the hearth.' They still get the shaft from the politicians, what average man doesn't? And there are still the wimps who want 'security.' The 'Revolution' wasn't more than a plurality, and there were almost as many who wanted to remain British. Forcing the politicians to leave us with our guns over the hearth defines us, and when we lose that definition, the American Eagle with follow the Roman Eagle into history.
As to a single action .45, you have to be shaking hands with someone to be sure of hitting them with a shot from one, and anyone who likes old weapons will tell you that. People kill each other, take away the guns, they'll use a knife, a rock, a baseball bat, take them all away and they'll use their hands. Banning weapons doesn't stop that, can't. I hope there is a way to stop it, because if there isn't the human race with start doing it with nuclear missiles. Absolutely convinced that force is the answer.
It isn't logical, but it is the basis of our national identity, and if we lose it, we're through.
Dale Whiting posted at 2:21 pm on Mon, Jan 9, 2012.
Mark,
I actually thought you would take much more heat for what you said than you did. And I appreciate how misguided our editor's choice of headlines can be.
Were I you, I'd realize that the 2nd Amendment no longer is the primary source of law underpinning gun rights laws and court decisions. Yes, our well regulated milicia has not needed to own their own weapons for almost two centuries now. But common law is another source of rights, though not often a source of rights that can overturn present day legislation. English common law recognized a right of self defense. I just cannot comprehend how either the 2nd Amendment or the common law of self defense can be stretched to permit people to possess armor pearcing ammunition or 30+ round magazines. But Jon Kyle thinks it can. Actually Jon has given up on legislation impacting gun owners. I suppose he's planning to lobby for the NRA after he retires.
Maybe others could explain the armor pearcing rounds and extended magazine issues, but so far none have. The last one attempting to explain his need for such magazines for his recreational activity said he needed a 30+ round magazine for target practice. Yet I have never seen a target that could move out of range before a hand gun could be reloaded! And it was reloading that stopped Jerod Laughner in Tucson and allowed an unarmed man to disarm Laughner. So go figure!
Rich posted at 6:30 pm on Mon, Jan 9, 2012.
Dale please, how many myths you want to believe? Armor piercing? The average 'bullet proof' Kelvar vest doesn't stop a .22LR from a gun with a ten inch or longer barrel. To be safe from most high powered handguns requires about 35 lbs of armor. And hunting bullets with harder cores, available almost anywhere, will go right through anything policemen wear. It isn't a 'Jedi Mind shield' and until it's heavier than most men can walk around the block in, both high caliber modern handguns and practically all hunting rifles with harder core bullets will penetrate it. Except in the movies. 'Armor piercing' and I assume you mean teflon coated, bullets are more a marketing trick than more dangerous. As to thirty round magazines, they make a high caliber pistol harder to aim, and you say you were in country, you never met anyone there who could fire thirty rounds reloading, faster and more accurately than 90% of people with thirty round clips can manage? "Armor piercing' is a joke and the 'danger' of thirty round clips a bigger one. I bet you think a silencer on a pistol makes the little 'poof' sound they play on T.V. and that one shot from a magnum pistol in a car's gas tank will blow up the car. Personally, I think everyone should have to shoot a minimum score on a range and take a course covering guns to get a high school degree. "Doctore" Niche's exposition, and your response only indicate a cluelessness that is probably more dangerous than either 'armor piercing' bullets or 'thirty round clips.'
Justin Bischel posted at 7:35 pm on Mon, Jan 9, 2012.
It appears that the principal needs schooling. For context, how about the various Militia Acts, starting with 1792? Every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45 (with exceptions for experienced men older than 45) are designated as part of the United States Militia, to be called upon by our nation if needed. Of course, those don't fit in the ultra-left worldview.
The rifle that patriots were armed with was a more expensive (and lethal) firearm than the Brown Bess smoothbore carried by the British army. The start of the Revolutionary war, the 'shot heard 'round the world' was a British column sent to confiscate cannon in Concord. Civilians with cannon? Mr. Neish seems to have very selective eyes when it comes to history.
Finally, it has been repeatedly proven that in the US, more guns equals less crime. Why? If you had common sense, you would realize that allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves (and each other) causes criminals to reconsider their actions. Gun Free Zones are Criminal Protection Zones, they disarm the lawful to be easier prey for the lawless. Mr. Neish, you have no common sense.
Cerulean posted at 7:40 pm on Tue, Jan 10, 2012.
A delight to read your column Mark Neish!
Rich, It is not a “joke” when people are under attack, being shot. When a person carries a clip of ammunition and people are the target, then the goal is - as many as fast as possible. The point to restricting clip capacity is to make that goal more difficult.
Bischel, Our national guard is a militia, our military is a militia, our local police force is a form of militia - but most of us ARE NOT part of a militia. That is why Shawna Forde is being tried in Tucson for her part in a fringe vigilante hate group who killed a father and his 9 year old daughter for not being U.S. citizens. She thought she was part of a ‘militia’ protecting the U.S. from non-citizens.
Rich posted at 10:32 pm on Tue, Jan 10, 2012.
Now I have to admit, I'm pretty bad with a gun, but since every CO I had in the Navy tried to make me better, I do know what a high caliber pistol does, and if you do you know that a thirty bullet clip isn't much of a help. The gun recoils, you can't fire it fast, get your mind off the movie screen, they are blanks in props. This column is like a festival of gun myths. Frankly, jokes. The guy who wrote it doesn't know that what he says about Tombstone is absurd, and the grave markers on Boot Hill are new and scoped to tourists, the cemetery closed and deteriorated before it was restored and records searched to find who was buried where, there are about 250 graves, very few were shot, disease and mining accidents are the reason it's there. In fact, if you're so inclined you can look up the murder rate in Tombstone's turbulent past (It hit a high of 5. Movies, T.V. and people haven't stopped mythologizing it for over a century now, but mythology doesn't justify law). What you will find is that statistically, you would have been a lot safer there than in most Valley cities today.
Ban 'Jedi Mind Shields' & armor piercing magic bullets! Ban large clips, and while you're at it, get rid of those deadly ray guns! Tombstone was a deadly place to live! It's nonsense from someone who doesn't know firearms, and mangles history to make his points. It's movie, T.V. mythology. Educate your children to at least understand firearms, if not use them. They are going to have to spend their lives coexisting with them, and ignorance isn't going to be a lot of help.
And Cerulean, while you might stretch the National Guard into a militia of sorts, both our armed forces and our police are professional, the exact antithesis of a militia, in the final analysis, one of the major reasons that a militia is a necessity.
Cerulean posted at 1:16 pm on Wed, Jan 11, 2012.
“In colonial America the militia, based on the tradition of the fyrd [Anglo Saxon defense where participants were expected to provide their own arms and supplies], was the only defense against hostile Indians during the long periods when regular British forces were not available. During the American Revolution, the militia provided the bulk of the American forces as well as a pool for recruiting or drafting of regulars. The militia played a similar role in the War of 1812 and the American Civil War. After that conflict, however, the militia fell into disuse.” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/382443/militia
(I just love how the Britannica lightens the fact that colonialist were squatting on “hostile Indian” territory. That is another story.)
Rich – I am not adverse to people owning guns. I accept that gun prohibition would be an impossible task to enforce. So far, I only own a .22 that my mom gave me but that might change - someday.
However, a militia is not the antithesis of a military just because one is salaried and the other is not. They both serve a similar function.
Rich posted at 2:28 pm on Wed, Jan 11, 2012.
Cerulean,
"...After that conflict, however, the militia fell into disuse.” Is that why the bulk of U.S. forces in WW I, WW II, Korea and Vietnam where drafted citizen soldiers? In for possibly the duration but no more? Please, try to discern what the axe being ground is by people you quote. Being drafted was a conflict in Constitution, as it was 'involuntary servitude.' The legal justification was the government had the right to call up the militia. This is no longer true, we no longer have 'citizen soldiers' we have 'professionals' and that is, in itself, a danger, two ways, first that the soldiers are beholden to the armed force, not the society and second citizens are not properly trained to withstand them. BTW, if you care to, look up crime in Switzerland, it's a more instructive bit of information on the societal effect of a militia than Britannica's view.
Go to a range, rent a high caliber pistol and take a lesson or two. Then form your opinion about such things a thirty round clips. You'll find that a real gun doesn't act like the props on T.V.
Cerulean posted at 12:48 pm on Thu, Jan 12, 2012.
Rich - Ok I have a new source, I am back reading Howard Zinn and it seems that militias were not completely abandoned. Zinn recites a time in 1919 when steelworkers went out on strike due to unbearable working conditions. Zinn writes “The sheriff of Allegheny County [Pennsylvania] swore in as deputies 5000 employees of U.S. Steel who had not gone on strike, and announced that outdoor meetings would be forbidden. A report of the Interchurch World Movement made at the time said: In Monessen…the policy of the State Police was simply to club me off the streets and them into their homes . . .Many of those arrested . . . were ordered not to be released until the strike was over.” (A Peoples History of the U.S. ppg381)
I think this qualifies as state use of a militia.
Also I believe that the colonists were paid by someone –were they?
Rich posted at 6:42 pm on Thu, Jan 12, 2012.
"Also I believe that the colonists were paid by someone –were they? "
Far too complicated a question for a forum such as this, you'd have to go colony by colony, and in some cases settlement by settlement. The most widespread use of militia pay was during the expansion of the country, the 'Frontier' or 'Indian' wars, and that was mostly Federal money. Some colonies paid, in various ways for a militia force. Taxes, some wealthy individuals, in some cases a church, with a system similar to the Cromwellian formula of parishioner's subscriptions. My degrees are in Philosophy, not history. Though seeing the Doctore here I'm beginning to think that degrees in history aren't all that much. I have seen, over the years, various militia 'payrolls' as small academic and research publications, they are a bit prized in genealogical research. To make the general statement one way or the other would probably be wrong. Best I can do, not very good, best you look for yourself.
You don't have to go very far to find a modern use of a militia. How does Sheriff Joe run a 'crime suppression' sweep?
davidflucier posted at 6:16 am on Fri, Jan 13, 2012.
Rich, you appear to have even less knowledge about firearms, ammunition and their accessories than you do about our "nation identity". If our national identity rests on our perception of "guns" (as you suggest), then we are through! Your'e weird, man.
Cerulean posted at 9:43 am on Fri, Jan 13, 2012.
I see I did an atrocious job with my quote from the Interchurch publication, it should read “ . . . the policy of the State Police was simply to club men off the streets and drive them into their homes . . .”
Hypatia was a philosopher. She was murdered by religious zealots – funny how history repeats.