"THE ONLY CURE..."

By Edwin Cooney

Ninety-one years have passed since Alfred (Al) Smith, the 1928 Democratic presidential candidate, uttered that immortal phrase: The only cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy!

According to a headline I recently saw in the New York Times, some 145 corporate executives have written the United States Senate that this gun violence crisis is simply unacceptable. They're right, of course, but before recommending a solution to the crisis, let's first examine the NRA/GOP/Trumpian solution. It can be summed up in two words: "MORE GUNS!"

The argument goes four-fold. First, more good people than bad people have guns. Second, limit the rights of good people to own guns and you automatically expand the number of bad people who will get guns. Third, as more good people carry guns, the message will go out loud and clear to the bad that it's becoming too dangerous to their well-being to own guns. Finally, the second amendment guarantees the individual's right to own guns. So, let's deal now with these four arguments.

I agree that there are more good people with guns than bad people with guns, but no assessment of the number of people who have guns has ever been a predictor of who will prevail in a gunfight.

Second, gunfights aren't won by numbers, they're usually won or lost by strategies and tactics. Good people, unlike baddies, aren't generally interested in using their guns in any kind of a battle situation. Hence, their mindsets aren't ordered toward aggressiveness nor battle discipline. Additionally, which group, goodies or baddies, are most likely to possess body armor?  

Third, the idea that "the bad" can receive messages is a nearly absolute myth. The bad among us are only different from the good in their perception of their lot in life. As they see it, their well-being, often their very safety, has already been taken from them. Bad people are usually on a mission to avenge their victimhood whether real or imagined. Their violence is not usually a child's dare. It's a mindset or attitude toward society in general. Too often, the outlaw equals the good guy in his or her willingness to kill in defense of their personhood and liberty.

Finally, there is the debatable applicability of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Here's that amendment in full:

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.

The purpose of this amendment is the assurance that the people will permanently have the right to establish a well regulated militia to protect their liberty. The right to "bear arms" presupposes that guns will always be the most sufficient method available to defend our liberties. The validity of that amendment has been affirmed by the United States Supreme Court going back to 1934. I think it's important to remember three vital factors dating back to the 1790’s when that amendment was passed by Congress and ratified by the states.

First, a gun was more than a weapon during the days of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.  A gun was a vital tool for acquiring food and many of the materials for clothing. Anyone living outside of a city needed a gun for their mere existence. Back in the days of Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone, guns invariably dispatched more animals than they did people. In 2019, the difference between the number of animals and the number of people killed appears to be growing smaller.  Second, the weapons being developed that could threaten our liberties are invariably much beyond the capacity of any gun to stop them. China or Russia can steal your money and your liberty electronically faster than Jesse James, Billy The Kid, or Matt Dillon could ever draw. 

Florida GOP Senator Marco Rubio advocated last Friday in the New York Times for passage of greater background checks and the red flagging of potential gun-toting terrorists. One wonders when Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump will catch up to Senator Rubio. Soon, I hope!

I can't avoid the following question! If the right to form a well-regulated militia is the real issue here, might not the black and Hispanic parents of school children be encouraged to form such a militia to protect the liberties of their school children as long as their targets are the powerful men who support the NRA? Couldn't that legitimately be defined as "a well regulated militia”?

So, back to Al Smith: No! The cure for the ills from gun violence is not more guns.

It's time to widen background checks on those who purchase guns, tax the hell out of ammunition making it even higher than the tax on tobacco, and make it legal for local judges to investigate potential gun-toting terrorists.

It's time to bring an end to this gun violence before the persons and families of NRA lovers become someone's legitimate target in defense of their own liberties and that of their children's!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY