WHAT I’M THINKING is now a probably infrequent feature of my blog. In it, I shall feel free (I hope) to share my thinking about any number of topics that matter to me and may matter to my readers, whether they be regular subscribers or those who stop along the way to somewhere else. Today's post is longer than my preferred 600-800 word length, but I have a lot to say!
When I heard that Charlie Kirk had been assassinated on September 10, I, for a moment, went dead. It was similar to the feeling I’ve had every time a public figure in our country has been killed—beginning at age fifteen when my political hero John F. Kennedy was struck down. And in 1981, when my fifth-grade students cheered upon hearing Reagan had been shot, I roared, “Hey, hey, haaaay,” and shared with them the dead feeling I once again felt. Never mind that I didn’t agree with a single one of Reagan’s policies, couldn’t stand the sight of him, the sound of his greasy voice. No one had a right to take a shot at the man. Killing was not the answer.
After Kirk’s demise, a better angel seemed to appear on my shoulder (right or left? I can’t recall), once again suggesting (nay, insisting) that killing is never an answer to a disagreement: Thou shalt not kill. The angel’s darker cousin sat on my other shoulder and whispered, Perhaps Charlie reapeth what he soweth? Funny thing, I read in a newspaper article that a schoolteacher who posted those very words online (reap/sow) was summarily fired or suspended. Stupid of her. Teachers are public figures, in their own way, and they must be excruciatingly discriminating about what they post on social media. But . . . I have a feeling many of us are lambasted with the same conflict: the intellectualization that killing is horribly wrong and the visceral, almost Neanderthal conviction that maybe the guy got what was coming to him. LET ME BE CLEAR: I do NOT believe that. Yet think about it: Though Kirk said in so many (and I mean MANY) words that he was a Christian, methinks perhaps other words and actions of his were not so kind. To vilify people of color, LGBTQ persons, anyone who doesn’t fit the politically correct image for SuperWhiteChristianNationalism—which Charlie did with great vigor—is an action that does not quack like the duck of Christendom I was brought up with (and yet rejected, I must confess, for its own prejudices against LGBTQ persons). I acknowledge I should not judge poor Charlie and his followers, lest I be judged myself and quite harshly. I don’t want to get shot for publicly stating my opinion, for Christ’s sake!
Ah, fear of being shot. That is an interesting proposition. In my opinion, the second amendment to the Constitution is an ambiguous, even poorly written statement. Perhaps it is not even grammatical, one that does not clearly state what it may (or may not) imply—sounding as if it were hastily tossed off one afternoon because its authors were, well, tired—which I believe some sources say the men involved were. Tired.
After Kirk’s demise, a better angel seemed to appear on my shoulder (right or left? I can’t recall), once again suggesting (nay, insisting) that killing is never an answer to a disagreement: Thou shalt not kill. The angel’s darker cousin sat on my other shoulder and whispered, Perhaps Charlie reapeth what he soweth? Funny thing, I read in a newspaper article that a schoolteacher who posted those very words online (reap/sow) was summarily fired or suspended. Stupid of her. Teachers are public figures, in their own way, and they must be excruciatingly discriminating about what they post on social media. But . . . I have a feeling many of us are lambasted with the same conflict: the intellectualization that killing is horribly wrong and the visceral, almost Neanderthal conviction that maybe the guy got what was coming to him. LET ME BE CLEAR: I do NOT believe that. Yet think about it: Though Kirk said in so many (and I mean MANY) words that he was a Christian, methinks perhaps other words and actions of his were not so kind. To vilify people of color, LGBTQ persons, anyone who doesn’t fit the politically correct image for SuperWhiteChristianNationalism—which Charlie did with great vigor—is an action that does not quack like the duck of Christendom I was brought up with (and yet rejected, I must confess, for its own prejudices against LGBTQ persons). I acknowledge I should not judge poor Charlie and his followers, lest I be judged myself and quite harshly. I don’t want to get shot for publicly stating my opinion, for Christ’s sake!
Ah, fear of being shot. That is an interesting proposition. In my opinion, the second amendment to the Constitution is an ambiguous, even poorly written statement. Perhaps it is not even grammatical, one that does not clearly state what it may (or may not) imply—sounding as if it were hastily tossed off one afternoon because its authors were, well, tired—which I believe some sources say the men involved were. Tired.
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.
Of course, I am wrong. The assertion is grammatical, “well regulated Militia” being the subject of the sentence followed by a double appositive (perhaps), and then the verb phrase, “shall not be infringed.” But do we as a nation follow it, do we really live by it? Let’s see, yes we do possess perhaps one of the best and most well regulated militias in the world if you consider only our professional military forces. God, yes. Our soldiers are fine sharpshooters also imbued with restraint and trained to employ judgment (wait till you see the whites of their eyes).
It is our PRIVATE militia that gives me pause. In their defense, millions of American gun owners, in fact, the majority of them, have never and will never, in all probability, kill another human being. Why? Because they’ve been trained by a loving father or other relative (Aunt Annie Oakley) to know when to shoot and when not. Or perhaps they’ve taken lessons from a professional staff. In any case, they’ve been trained to maintain and store weapons safely. A neighbor or friend might not even realize that they own guns. These good citizens we must protect. They participate in legal hunting which helps keep herd counts down among certain species (us poor Texans and our javelina infestation). These good citizens are at the ready if a neighbor should need them. They are prepared if someone should invade their home, their private space of any kind. But what about our private militia members who have not been trained?
Millions more of these untrained gunowners exist, and we must ask ourselves, are these parties being well regulated, as our dear second amendment suggests so lightly but clearly? In the name of safety we already require that automobile drivers must pass written and driving tests to secure a license—even if thousands still die yearly from accidents. Is our private militia well regulated when almost anyone can buy a gun of any type, including military-style automatic weapons engineered to kill people FAST? Is our private militia well regulated when absolutely no one is required to be trained (as our professional militia is) or required to pass basic tests over weaponry and state and federal laws concerning gun ownership and safety? Is it well regulated when anyone can buy any kind of weapon online without the knowledge of any governing board or governmental (state or federal) authority of any kind? Is it well regulated when anyone can attend one the myriad gun shows staged across America and purchase any kind of weapon including military weapons capable of killing huge numbers of human beings?
I say not. This huge mélange of people and their firearms are NOT being well regulated. What to do about it? It’s going to take the will of congress and a courageous president to change things. And it will take the will of a great flood of people to make that kind of congress truly representative of what a majority of Americans vote. If a variety of national polls are to be believed, the majority of Americans long for gun safety laws of some kind. O Master Google AI declares on the day I’m writing this piece:
It is our PRIVATE militia that gives me pause. In their defense, millions of American gun owners, in fact, the majority of them, have never and will never, in all probability, kill another human being. Why? Because they’ve been trained by a loving father or other relative (Aunt Annie Oakley) to know when to shoot and when not. Or perhaps they’ve taken lessons from a professional staff. In any case, they’ve been trained to maintain and store weapons safely. A neighbor or friend might not even realize that they own guns. These good citizens we must protect. They participate in legal hunting which helps keep herd counts down among certain species (us poor Texans and our javelina infestation). These good citizens are at the ready if a neighbor should need them. They are prepared if someone should invade their home, their private space of any kind. But what about our private militia members who have not been trained?
Millions more of these untrained gunowners exist, and we must ask ourselves, are these parties being well regulated, as our dear second amendment suggests so lightly but clearly? In the name of safety we already require that automobile drivers must pass written and driving tests to secure a license—even if thousands still die yearly from accidents. Is our private militia well regulated when almost anyone can buy a gun of any type, including military-style automatic weapons engineered to kill people FAST? Is our private militia well regulated when absolutely no one is required to be trained (as our professional militia is) or required to pass basic tests over weaponry and state and federal laws concerning gun ownership and safety? Is it well regulated when anyone can buy any kind of weapon online without the knowledge of any governing board or governmental (state or federal) authority of any kind? Is it well regulated when anyone can attend one the myriad gun shows staged across America and purchase any kind of weapon including military weapons capable of killing huge numbers of human beings?
I say not. This huge mélange of people and their firearms are NOT being well regulated. What to do about it? It’s going to take the will of congress and a courageous president to change things. And it will take the will of a great flood of people to make that kind of congress truly representative of what a majority of Americans vote. If a variety of national polls are to be believed, the majority of Americans long for gun safety laws of some kind. O Master Google AI declares on the day I’m writing this piece:
Polls have shown strong support for
-Universal background checks (87%)
-Red flag laws (77%)
-Licensing requirements (72%)
-Safe storage laws (79%)
-Raising the age to buy a gun to 21 (81%)
-Prohibiting individuals with temporary domestic violence
protection orders from having guns (82%).
Would such laws eliminate all school shootings and political assassinations, not to mention the “little” assassinations taking place in our neighborhoods every day? I should say not. But would it not be better to save as many lives as possible, instead of relying on thoughts and prayers to get us through to the next killing field? I say yes. To so-called Originalist interpreters of the Constitution I declare: When the second amendment was written, it took perhaps 30 seconds to reload a musket. Take note, supreme court justices: Times have changed, and so should your thinking; you’re not being consistent if you believe a musket is equal to an AR-15 in any manner! Moreover, other industrialized countries, including Australia and most western European countries, already have established effective gun laws. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. We can learn from other nations, what laws work and what ones don’t, and strive toward a more perfect union for us all—if that’s what we the majority really want. And I believe it is.
Even if I didn’t concur with Kirk, I feel a dead spot in my life because of his loss. No matter the politician, no matter the individual you may disagree with , murder is never the answer.
Even if I didn’t concur with Kirk, I feel a dead spot in my life because of his loss. No matter the politician, no matter the individual you may disagree with , murder is never the answer.
RSS Feed