TERRY TURNER: Playing to our imagination

Published 5:31 am Sunday, April 16, 2023

President Franklin Roosevelt famously articulated four freedoms he believed were fundamental to the American dream: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. Of those “Four Freedoms,” only two — freedom of speech and freedom of worship — are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Those two freedoms appear in the First Amendment along with freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable assembly, and freedom to petition the government. The other nine amendments of the Constitution’s first ten guarantee other freedoms or rights that all Americans enjoy. The only amendment modified by an introductory, qualifying clause is the Second Amendment, the one guaranteeing the right to possess firearms.

That Second Amendment has only one sentence. The second half of that sentence includes the words, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” but that phrase is clearly in support of the first half of the sentence, which expresses the necessity for “a well regulated militia.” A militia is a trained military force called to action only upon necessity, which is today’s National Guard. Other reasons to possess firearms — hunting, home defense, etc. — are not addressed by the Second Amendment. Needless to say, this reading is not universally accepted.

Many who think of themselves as Second Amendment advocates seem to read only the second half of the amendment — perhaps they should be called Second-Halfers! To them, the Second Amendment allows people to keep and carry all the guns they want anywhere and anytime they want. They believe the amendment prevents the government from restricting gun ownership and possession in any way. One wonders why they don’t call for the legalization of machine guns, submachine guns, hand grenades, or even more destructive devices; they are all “arms!” The truth is, only the most extreme Second-Halfers would support that kind of legalization, but that leaves the more rational Second-Halfers in a logical twist. If they agree that the Constitution allows restrictions on machine guns, submachine guns, and the like, why not their junior cousins, assault-style rifles and the high-capacity magazines that serve them and other weapons? Machine guns, hand grenades, and other specific weapons are banned because they pose an exceptional danger in the wrong hands. The same danger exists with assault-style weapons. While the vast majority of gun-related homicides are not by assault-style weapons and the majority of owners of those weapons do not use them in crimes, the problem is that when they are used with evil intent they are particularly destructive. Assault-style rifles have been the long gun of choice in mass shootings in the United States, and over the last ten years alone the number killed or wounded in those shootings is approximately 20,000 (from www.gunviolencearchive.org). It took twenty years of war in Afghanistan to reach a similar number of casualties.

Anyone who has thought truthfully about this issue knows that those assault-style rifles are not sold for ordinary shooting sports, hunting or home defense. They are mostly sold to fulfill the macho urges of the those who like to imagine that they, too, can be Rambo. Naturally, the gun industry plays to that imagination. Sure, it can be a power trip to squeeze off a long burst of ball ammunition and, sure, having a hero-style weapon makes some think they could be the Terminator in a shoot-out. On the other hand, those who commit mass murder tend to use those assault-style weapons because they are particularly destructive. No one is coming for anybody’s legally held firearms; but the question is, which firearms should remain legally held?