Home Gun News & First Ammendment Issues Guns are a significant part of American society. Taking them away won’t...

Guns are a significant part of American society. Taking them away won’t help. | Opinion

434
0


Louis Haas

,
Guest Columnist


Published 6:00 a.m. CT Aug. 20, 2019 | Updated 12:15 p.m. CT Aug. 20, 2019

CLOSE

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Marsha Blackburn responds to a question on what can be done to prevent mass shootings at the Outpost Armory gun shop.
Scott Broden, USA TODAY NETWORK – Tennessee

Guns are vital for protection in America. The acts of the few shouldn’t affect citizens’ rights to guns, which is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Gun control is not the answer; universal background checks will do nothing to stop these mass shootings. Joe Biden, when Vice-President admitted this and said so.  

In all the recent mass shootings, the killer purchased the weapon(s) legally with a background check.  Likewise, so-called red flag laws would not have stopped these as well. 

As usual with so many of these killers there was nothing outstanding or noticeable about them (though as of late they do seem motivated by some horrendous white nationalism beliefs—sadly, protected by the First Amendment).  Preventing the sale or ownership of so-called assault rifles will not prevent these mass shootings.  Semi-automatic rifles and pistols have been a standard part of American gun ownership, shooting, and hunting since about 1900.  

Why is it only recently that semi-automatic firearms have become an issue in American society? No coincidence that descriptions of the Christ Church killer’s video say it looked like a video game. 

Besides, too many other guns can be used even if “assault rifles” are prohibited.  Confiscation of these likewise is prohibitive as there may be about 30 million currently in circulation — Australia’s forced gun buyback only targeted some one million and half guns. 

We cannot afford gun control

Moreover, trying to limit assault rifles does violate the Second Amendment.  The late Justice John Paul Stevens noted this in two essays prior to his death.

He, like many lawyers, legal analysts, scholars, and others, had believed the Second Amendment truly applied only to civilians having guns to use in a militia.  This had been based on an erroneous reading and interpretation of US v. Miller (1939) where sawed off shotguns were seen as having no military purpose (the justices were unfamiliar with the history and use of sawed off shotguns in the military, including during World War I) and thus could be restricted. 

The two recent Supreme Court decisions concluding that the Second Amendment did specify the personal possession of guns for personal defense nullified this militia interpretation, both legally and historically. 

Justice Stevens admitted this in a New York Times essay where he concluded that the Second Amendment would have to be rewritten in order for it to explain his stance. 

Your state. Your stories. Support more reporting like this.
A subscription gives you unlimited access to stories across Tennessee that make a difference in your life and the lives of those around you. Click here to become a subscriber.

Our Founding Fathers grew up in a  gun dueling culture

Later recognizing how the Second Amendment did prevent gun control, Stevens concluded that one would have to repeal the Second Amendment.  Otherwise, most gun control proposals — like limiting long gun purchases and possessions to 21 year olds — would fail legally. 

Even in that case this attempt is not really common sense, as so many of these killers are 21 or older.  Nevertheless, repealing the Second Amendment is highly unlikely.

What then to do about mass killings in public or at work places? More guns. 

We need more legal concealed carry and we need more places to allow concealed carry, so that the intended victims of a mass shooting can have a decent chance of surviving or stopping these events. 

If the theory on any mass shooting is flight, hide, or fight, why not make sure that the fighting aspect of it works.  Armed combat is always more effective than unarmed combat.  Businesses, despite their qualms, should allow legal concealed carry on their premises and should allow their employees to carry as well. 

Louis Haas is a professor of history at Middle Tennessee State University. He target shoots for fun.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2019/08/20/gun-control-not-solution-wed-like/2051477001/

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, social media, internet forums. etc.



Source link

Leave a Reply