On the Connecticut shooting, a letter to the Star Tribune included:
"To discuss this very volatile matter, we need to wait until we have a period of, say, a year and a half with no mass killings that come about as a result of gun sales and ownership."
- http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/183584251.html
I wonder if the writer considered that "a year and a half with no mass killings" is about the same as never. First, unfortunately there will be some copycat killings. Second, what does he define as "mass killings", more than two dozen victims, more than a dozen, more than six? This writer also thought that the killer could have killed as many with a club and feet!
We really should have been having intelligent conversations how to reduce the number of killings, no matter how many are killed by no matter how many. But, no, we have the National Rifle Association (NRA) raising political hell on any restrictions of unlimited availability of guns and a few less politically powerful calling for complete restrictions.
I wish some Constitutional scholars would really take on the meaning of the Second Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Many argue that the single-shot "Arms" of the time were nowhere near as lethal as the large-magazine automatic pistols of today. Unfortunately, few argue about the choice of words for who has the right to bear arms or for what purpose.
First, the purpose in the Second Amendment is "the security of a free State", not the "defense of home or self". Many claim that the Constitution gives them the right to have arms to defend their home. That is common law, the so-called "castle doctrine", not constitutional law. Given the times, I venture that this was meant for communities on the frontier to defend themselves against Indian attack or foreign invasions.
Second, please note the choice of words to describe who has the "right to bear arms" - "the people", not persons or citizens. The writers used "the people" only twice in the original Constitution: "We, the People" in the preamble and "The House of Representative shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People..." in Article I, Section 2. That is, "people" is a collective noun. Otherwise, when writing about individuals, the writers used "person" or "citizen" in the singular or plural form as appropriate.
I do find it ironic that the party that wants a strict interpretation of the Constitution gives such a loose interpretation to the Second Amendment. This same party completely ignores the parts of the Constitution that state office holders need only give an oath (or affirmation) to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." - Article II, Section 1, and Article VI. Article VI also includes "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." It would seem the political pressure to attend prayer breakfasts or to end speeches with "God Bless America" are certainly violations of the Constitution.
