When I thought about starting a political blog I never thought I would start in the aftermath of such a tragedy as the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut.
Shortly after arriving at school, a lone gunman (20 year old Adam Lanza) made his way to Sandy Hook Elementary after shooting and killing his own mother. He is believed to have been armed with three guns.
In just a few minutes Lanza had taken the lives of 18 Children and six adults with a further two children dying shortly after the event.
A massacre at a school like this has not since the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007 where a student killed 37 people.
With President Obama appearing tearful at his press conference he urged for “meaningful action” against gun crime.
But how meaningful will it be. The conservative right argue that a tragedy like this shouldn’t be used for political point scoring, however we were in a similar situation back in January of this year when a man had gone into a cinema in Colorado at the opening of the Batman film and shot dead 12 people.
Even when shootings hit the heart of government when Arizona Congress Woman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head. Luckily she survived however six others weren’t so lucky in the shooting. You would think then there would be a serious discussion about gun control. Even after the assassination of JFK the 1968 Gun Control Act put an end to guns being sent through the post.
The debate comes down to the U.S Second Amendment to the Constitution. This was passed in December 1791 with the rest of the Bill of Rights. It reads “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”. This was to tackle the following threats the U.S faced.
Deterring tyrannical government,
Repelling invasion;
Facilitating a natural right of self defence
Participating in law enforcement
Enabling the people to organise a militia system.
Now in the days of British rule, a militia in opposition to the British became widespread asserting their claim to independence. The army that won the war of independence consisted of the “Continental Army” created by the continental congress together with various state and regional militia.
The right to bear arms has been debated over the articles meaning. Is it a collective right of the state to bear arms in defence or is it an individual right to bear arms. No one can answer for definite what the founding fathers intended. It can only be debated. The issue has come up in the Supreme court numerous times. In 2001 in United states v Emerson, 2008 in District of Columbia v Heller and in 2010 in McDonald v Chicago. All the rulings upheld the belief that the constitutional reference to “The People” meant an individualistic term and not that of a collective state/national term. Justice Antonin Scalia in Heller stated “Nowhere in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything but the individual right. However Justice John Paul Stevens countered this argument with the amendment reading “to secure the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with the service of a well-regulated militia”. The right to keep and bear arms was interpreted as that of weapons not specifically designed for military use. Even writing this makes me confused. How can a written text give off two different answers.
Family guy made an interesting point in a cut away about writing the second amendment.
When challenged on the language one of the fathers states “Every American has the right to hang bear arms in their home. How can that be misconstrued?” It sums up the debate on the language.
http://youtu.be/RablPaIREkk
Let’s look to Australia and back at an event in 1996. April 28th A man aged 28 shot dead 35 people and wounding 23 more in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Before this tragedy Australian laws on gun ownership were pretty laxed. However Prime Minister Howard led state governments including those that didn’t want to see changes in gun laws to severely restrict the availability of firearms. Surveys showed 85% of Australians were in favour of gun control the minority led protests. The government and media exposed the fact that the NRA of America was supporting the Australian gun owners it created moral outrage in the communities discrediting the gun lobbyists.
The Government banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership of firearms and tightened their legal uses. The government initiated a “buy-back” scheme costing around $350m Australian Dollars claiming 643,000 firearms. Like the gunman in Newtown the gunman in Port Arthur is also believed to have mental health issues however with the diagnosis of schizophrenia and depression he was still able to obtain a gun despite lacking a gun licence.
Cases like the ones we see in America show that their gun laws aren’t strong enough and the conservatives hide behind the Second Amendment. It’s very easy for us in Britain to say all this. However let me remind you this year two police officers were shot dead, and when asked the question should our police be armed in a poll afterwards, the majority said no and so did the police.
I hope that these children and teachers don’t die in vain and that President Obama is able to get talks and discussions going on gun laws. How many more massacres will it take before America see’s the extent of their failure in tackling this issue?
