Filmmaker Michael Moore was on Chris Hayes’ MSNBC show on Tuesday, May 24, 2022. It was the day of another senseless mass shooting in the United States. The targets this time were once again school children. Twenty-one people in all killed in the town of Uvalde, Texas.

Moore is clearly for strong gun control legislation, but he didn’t say what so many proponents of gun control frequently say, “I believe in the Second Amendment.”

Instead, Moore pointed out how the Second Amendment has essentially given pro-gun people free license in opposing meaningful gun control. Then Moore raised a fascinating hypothetical question. “What if bullets had not been invented until fifty years after the U.S. constitution was written?”

His point was that gun rights are completely different from any other rights in the constitution. All of the other rights would have been relevant in the times of Greece, or Rome, or really any time. These non-gun rights could easily have stood alone without the Second Amendment.  This doesn’t mean that people could not have had guns once they and bullets were invented. The difference is that there would not have been a constitutional guarantee to be able to purchase and possess guns.

There are many who say that even with the Second Amendment, there is no such guarantee. The wording is thoroughly ambiguous:

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.

It may seem at first that this amendment guarantees people the right to bear arms, but the context is having a well regulated militia. So does the right to bear arms only apply for those who are in a militia (armed forces) or the United States, or can they own guns regardless of whether or not they are in the U.S. military?

This argument is one which America’s gun owners have won. Much as those who favor gun control want immediate new regulations, it appears that it will be years before Congress passes meaningful legislation or the Supreme Court chooses to value public safety above gun rights.

There are numerous reasons why the gun advocates are currently winning this dispute:

1. They own most of the guns, and that frightens many who want to limit gun rights.
2. The roots of the Second Amendment have a great deal to do with slave owners’ rights and needs to hunt down runaway slaves. Creating the constitution required considerable compromise to get southern states to agree to the document. Protecting their control over slaves who were already in the United States was essential to southern states’ acceptance of the constitution. In contemporary American society, many White Americans feel that they need to have guns to protect themselves against Black Americans.
3. Unlike most other democratic countries, the United States has this peculiar institution called states rights. In many cases, the rights of states supersede those of the federal government. For example, the state of Georgia can make a law stating that it is illegal to bring a glass of water to someone standing in line to vote, and currently there is nothing that the federal government can do about it. In the absence of strong federal gun controls, the states pass more “gun rights.”
4. The U.S. Senate favors small and southern states, and those are the states in which gun rights are most deeply cherished. This makes it very difficult to pass meaningful gun control legislation. It might be possible without a filibuster, but that arcane rule is cherished by senators from small states, rural states and southern states.

The United States did not come close to writing a constitution in a time before guns and bullets were invented. The first guns were invented in China in the 10^th Century. Michael Moore was not trying to point out that we almost avoided having the Second Amendment in our Constitution. What he meant is that it is significantly different than any other part of the constitution, and had guns not existed, we would have found a way to agree on the constitution.

It’s one of those “What ifs ….” that keep us thinking. It’s interesting talk, but regrettably, only academic now. Barring some sort of unforeseen circumstances, we’re going to have to live with lightly regulated guns for some time which means that we’ll have more Uvaldes and other mass shootings. The “thoughts and prayers” come easily; meaningful gun control is stymied by the oddity of having the Second Amendment in our Constitution.

The post What if Guns and Bullets Had Not Been Invented Before the Constitution Was Written? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In 1800, the urban population of the United States was 6%; 94% was rural. According to the 2010 census, 81% of Americans live in urban areas; only 19% in rural areas.

When I was growing up in the 1960s, 60% of the population lived in urban areas. What did I know about the Second Amendment? Virtually nothing. I’m sure that I read it as we studied our constitution, but it was an outlier, having virtually nothing to do with my life or the rights that I wanted to protect. Guns were something that we saw in westerns or World War II movies. I knew of the N.R.A., but only because their “seal of approval” was on some of the paraphernalia that we used at summer camp for very tepid riflery shooting.

As the statistics above show, I was growing up at a time when America was becoming more and more urbanized. One of the challenges that our country faced was how we as a society could better adapt to more condensed living. Violence in our streets was becoming more of an issue, particularly in those inner-city neighborhoods with high levels of minorities who were poor. Riots broke out in Harlem in 1964, in Los Angeles (Watts) in 1965, and scores of other major cities by 1968.

While many of us believed that better policing would be helpful, the main lessons to be learned was that we were a racially divided nation and poverty was far more endemic among those with darker skin.  The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, known as the Kerner Commission, was released almost fifty years ago to this very day. Among its recommendations were:

“Unless there are sharp changes in the factors influencing Negro settlement patterns within metropolitan areas, there is little doubt that the trend toward Negro majorities will continue.

Providing employment for the swelling Negro ghetto population will require …opening suburban residential areas to Negroes and encouraging them to move closer to industrial centers…”

These are suggestions of reason, of compassion, of common sense. They reflect a vision of America in which non-violent steps are taken to address the existing problems of violence. Nowhere in the Kerner Report is the Second Amendment mentioned. That, truly, would have been an outlier.

Fifty years later, we are hearing from more social observers that as a country, we have regressed over those fifty years. Respect for our government, mainstream media, and many other institutions has eroded. Kurt Anderson has written about this in Fantasyland, and more recently Robert Reich in his just-released The Common Good.

But we don’t need the words of intellectuals to tell us what has happened. That portion of American people who voted in our last presidential election spoke loudly when they almost gave a popular majority to the least intellectual president in this country’s history. The social and economic programs for minorities that the Kerner Commission suggested have been replaced by venom and gun-right rhetoric coming from many disenfranchised non-minority members of our society.

And then came 2018 St. Valentine’s Massacre at Marjory Douglas Stoneman in Parkland, FL. Yes, it was not an isolated incident. It followed a series of horrific mass murders by guns, mostly with automatic weapons. But what was different was the chorus of voices, mostly student voices, that came to the fore. They spoke of reason and compassion. Many spoke of a world in which gun rights are superfluous to the major tasks of learning and living.

It is worthwhile to hear some of the most cogent of those voices. Here is Delaney Tarr:

Granted, she and others might use a dose of humility, just as those of us growing up in “educated” environments in the 1960s could have used the same. In fact, it’s possible that our lack of humility triggered a lot of the backlash the in 50 years resulted in Trump. So, with the enthusiasm and insight of youth, there needs to be an awareness that none of us, no matter what our age or experiences might be, has a corner on wisdom.

Student Emma Gonzalez does an excellent job of pointing out the impatience of her generation with adult b.s. Again, a dose of humility might be good, but let’s not toss out the baby with the bathwater.

One of the best insights on how to deal with the power of guns and the N.R.A. comes from Linda Beigel-Schulman whose son was a teacher at Stoneman Douglas and who was killed in the assault. She goes right to the connection between gun power and the lack of campaign finance laws in the U.S.

What is clear is that the students and the broader family at Stoneman Douglas were doing just fine without a fixation on the Second Amendment. They were learning and trying to improve themselves and others in the world. They are conversant with language that works, and that means that they have a high level of B.S. detection.

In many ways, we have been here before – a growing, educated society not burdened by the political influence of the N.R.A. and its membership. Somehow, we blew it. We need to learn from our mistakes. But let us not forget that an optimistic and civilized society is not one with a gun fixation. Whether the Second Amendment belongs are part of the Bill of Rights is only part of the question. Present or not, we need to elevate our conversation and insight so as to have a society in which guns are an implement of last resort, and last availability. The students at Stoneman Douglas, and many progressive adults may have helpful insight on this, but our challenge is to find a way for gun-lovers to become stake-holders in a society which is committed to non-violence and harmony, not bravado and bullying. This is a tough task, so let’s roll up our sleeves. Maybe the next fifty years will be better.

The post There’s something good about growing up without the Second Amendment in your face appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s an outlier. It is essentially unrelatable to the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights or anything else in the U.S. Constitution. But because the founding fathers wanted to make sure that white males would be able to keep slaves in check, the “right to bear arms” was included in a sloppily worded notion called the Second Amendment.

If slavery was America’s original sin, then the Second Amendment is the second sin. And they are related, as that right to bear arms was in large part included in order to perpetuate slavery.

Other than slavery, there was really no need for the Second Amendment. At the time that the constitution was being framed, guns were just another implement of life in on a lightly developed continent.

Guns were definitely an improvement over bows and arrows. There were definite human and non-human threats while living on the prairie. A gun could be useful there. It also would be efficient for the government to know that many potential draftees in a time of war would have their own weapons.

But in a lot of ways, they were just another implement, like a plow or a gas lantern. They made life easier. The Constitution already said that individuals had the right to property, so there was no need to establish a specific “right” to own firearms.

This Amendment facilitated the use of violence, something that is part of human nature. But as we look at countries such as the United Kingdom or Australia, we can see that human nature can function without easy access guns. And Australia is like the United States in that it was a vast expanse that had to be settled under dangerous conditions. But after a school shooting in the late 1990s, they called upon their common sense to make it very difficult to purchase firearms. They have had no school shootings since.

I would love it if the Second Amendment was repealed and most guns were confiscated. My reason is simple – we would be a more civil and civilized society. But I am not so naïve as to think that this will happen. The process of confiscating guns would likely result in domestic carnage the likes of which we have never seen save for the Civil War.

But what we should do is to recognize that the Second Amendment was created on spurious grounds and that it protects a specious right. It is unlike any of the other rights that are essential to a democracy.

What we can do is recognize that this mistake of a “right” will likely be with us for a long time, but we should work to craft gun policy that looks at weapons like any other implement that can be dangerous and needs to be regulated to ensure safety (e.g. power tools).

There are many Americans who resent the lives of metropolitan elites. They have good reason to hold grudges and to want a rebalancing of economic power within our society. But the right to resent should not be confused with the right to bear arms.

It might be easier for us to try to get along better if there were fewer guns. Let’s not lose sight of that.

The post Can we please not start with, “I believe in the Second Amendment” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

There are 4,543 words in the original, unamended U.S. Constitution, minus the names of the signatories. Is it possible that anyone at any time could write a document of this length and not have a lapse or two of clarity? Doubtful. Even the master of certainty, Donald Trump, acknowledges that he is not quite sure what the meaning of “natural born citizen” is. Of course he uses that to his advantage as he encourages his current top opponent, Senator Ted Cruz, to get a judicial clarification on whether he is a natural born citizen, and thus qualified to be President of the United States. It’s a moot question; a standing verdict could only be determined if Cruz was elected president and someone filed suit to challenge his legitimacy. (Cruz was born in Canada but his mother is a U.S. citizen).

But “natural born citizen” was not the only term in the Constitution that is open to interpretation. You could take almost any three words of the twenty-seven–word Second Amendment: “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.”

Scholars have argued for centuries what is the exact meaning of the Second Amendment. The fact that intelligent individuals have argued over the years about it is a pretty good indicator that there is indeed a lack of certainty about its wording. But in the current debate, virtually no one challenges the notion that the Second Amendment guarantees for Americans the right to own guns. This is not only true for the NRA or conservatives or Republicans, but also for Democrats and progressives including President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. President Obama acknowledged as much in his January 7 Town Hall meeting on guns.

Conservatives have defined the conversation in such a way that the implicit ambiguity of the Second Amendment is not up for discussion. Even gun control advocacy groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety and Stop Handgun Violence do not challenge the wording of the Amendment. What those who want stricter gun control legislation advocate is restrictions on gun ownership in the interest of public safety. This can be difficult to do because nowhere in the constitution is public safety guaranteed. The Declaration of Independence talks about what is necessary to “effect their Safety and Happiness,” but those two terms were left out of the Constitution except with regard to a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

If the issue of a “natural born citizen” becoming president was ever taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, there could be a simple straight up or straight down answer as to whether Ted Cruz would meet that requirement to be president. Yes, it would be subject to further rulings, but for the time being there would be certainty. The conditions that existed when this phrase was written in 1787 are still the same now. That cannot be said for the Second Amendment.

Our ability to talk about “common sense gun legislation” might be enhanced by progressives first seeking a “common sense clarification of the Second Amendment.” I’m not sure that the Courts could be of much help in this regard, but perhaps amending the Amendment would help by spelling out clearly who could have guns and who couldn’t, and for what purposes. This might be wishful thinking, but until we put the wording of the Second Amendment on the table, we will be very limited in what we can do to curb gun violence.

The post Second Amendment and Natural Born Citizen have something in common appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s been just over two months since twenty children and six adults were brutally gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  Since then thirty-three people have died in gun violence every single day across this country. Tragically, it’s too late to save those 2,145 mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, brothers, sisters, grandparents, and friends.

The question is are we going to save the next 2,145 or are we going to pretend that there’s nothing to be done?

Contrary to the rantings of the NRA and right-wing media, the majority of us do not share their claim that the unfettered right to bear arms trumps the rest of our rights. For a majority of us, unregulated gun ownership takes a backseat to our right to safety, the safety of our children, and the right to live in our homes,  walk our streets, and interact in public places without fear of harm.

The truth is that public debate over what experts agree is the most effective method to decrease the killing—universal background checks—is settled.  The problem is that our elected representatives haven’t gotten the message.

Recent polls tell a lopsided story

According to Politifact.com, the latest Quinnipiac University poll in January/February showed that 92% of all of us support background checks for all gun owners.  Among those in households with a gun on the premises, 91% of us support universal background checks.

The Pew Research poll in January concurred:  85% of non–gun-owning Americans and 85% of gun owners favor requiring private gun sales and sales of guns at gun shows to be subject to background checks.

Other polls drawing the same conclusions keep rolling in. The CBS News/New York Times poll in January concluded that 92% of all Americans and 85% of those living in households (yes, your eyes aren’t failing you!) with an NRA member support universal background checks.

With poll numbers like these, on the one hand, and overwhelming Republican opposition to universal background checks, on the other, surely the only conclusion to be drawn is that we, the people, have lost our ability to influence our elected officials.  And when our elected representatives ignore the will of the people—as they surely are right now—then we are well on the way to losing the democratic compact as well.

For those old enough to remember, there used to be a public-service announcement that asked, “It’s 10:00.  Do you know where your children are?”  It’s time to rephrase the question. “Thirty-three precious lives are snuffed out by guns every day.  Do you know where your representatives stand?”

Where does your representative stand?

The staff at The Daily Beast has decided to help us answer that question.  By tallying the statements, voting records, ratings from the NRA and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, as well as reports of campaign contributions by the gun lobby for every member of Congress, The Daily Beast staff has assessed the likely votes of your elected officials on gun legislation. They call their graphic “This is Your Representative on Guns.”

According to their tally, 287 senators and representatives oppose gun reform. One hundred and eighty-eight support reform.  Thirty-six members have an unclear position, and twenty could be considered swing votes.

Click here,  and take a look at the list.  You’ll find out whether your representatives are working for you on this issue. And if you find they are not, then search your conscience and ask yourself these two questions:  Do I care that thirty-three people will be killed today?  And if I do care, can I not find the time to make a call, write an e-mail, or compose a short letter to remind my representatives that it is their solemn duty to protect and defend us—the people—and not the interests of the gun lobby.

The post This is your representative on guns appeared first on Occasional Planet.

“They’re trying to take away my Second Amendment rights,”  say many gun rights advocates. But what do they mean by that? I doubt that a cogent expression of their thoughts would be:

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. (some commas and capitalization discretionary)

That is the official wording of the Second Amendment, and to many it is extremely confusing. Does it mean that individuals should be allowed to have guns in order to be part of a well-regulated militia? If so, is this militia supposed to fight on behalf of the government or should it be a “citizens’ army” to protect individuals from a too-powerful government?

Or is the militia component really superfluous, because the Amendment states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This interpretation would mean that individuals have the right to bear arms, period.

And what about the arms? What kind of arms do people have the right to bear? This is not stated in the Second Amendment.  In fact, there is no hint as to whether there should be any limitations on the types of guns. And let’s remember that when Second Amendment was written in the late 19^th Century, the firepower of the weapons was just a pittance of the strength of today’s armaments. Would the Founding Fathers have said that people have the right to bear nuclear weapons?

We must also keep in mind that, in the late 19^th Century, most of America was rural. That was the predominant culture, and individuals had a more clear need for guns in order to protect themselves from dangerous animals and other threats that were common in isolated areas.

What to do now

The Second Amendment is confusing. Our national debate over guns is fought in the context of a great cultural divide over what role guns should play in our society.  What we need more than anything is clarity. Specifically, that means that we need a new Second Amendment.

Below is a proposed new Second Amendment. It will be more specific that the current one. The more details, the more choices there are to be made. So, this will not be a final version of the Second Amendment, instead it will be a broad outline. Perhaps this can be the basis of some further discussion on the Second Amendment.

1. Regulations regarding the possession or use of weapons shall be framed so as to provide a reasonable balance between the rights of individual citizens and the common good of the American people.

2. Individuals shall have the right to possess and use weapons so long as they:

• Have not been convicted of a crime of violence.
• Have not been convicted of a crime in which they were in possession of a weapon.
• Have not been diagnosed as having a psychological disorder that would make them likely to use a weapon in an act of aggression.
• Have undergone a thorough background check by federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms or it successor agencies.

3. The Congress of the United States shall have the obligation to pass legislation outlawing those weapons that it deems to be unsafe for society if they are in the possession of individuals.

4. States shall have the right to further refine those weapons that are permitted in different areas of the state. The states should recognize that in certain areas the balance shall be more in favor of individual rights and in other areas the balance should be in favor of the common good.

5. All levels of government shall have the right to pass legislation invoking penalties for individuals or groups that possess or use weapons contrary to this Amendment.

The city of Chicago has nearly two deaths by firearms every day. Many rural communities have not had a killing by firearms for decades. Our goal must be to make policy that is maximally responsive to the needs of people in different demographic and cultural communities. Rewriting the Second Amendment would be a good place to start.

The post Rewriting the Second Amendment appeared first on Occasional Planet.