Do I sound upset? I’m sure I am. Maine has always been a special place to me. I almost moved there five years ago. The great outdoors, the beaches and the surf are just part of the appeal. The lobster boats and the lighthouses make the trip well worthwhile. And the splendor of the leaves of autumn is unrivaled in Maine. There are also books on Maine which I sought out when I was younger such as “The Maine Woods” by Henry David Thoreau and the numerous nature books published by Bernd Heinrich, Professor Emeritus at the University of Vermont’s biology department which kept me reading long into the winter nights. But now there is trouble in paradise. Today in Maine, it’s just another day in America.
For the past few months, Deena has been planning a big family get together at an Airbnb we rented in Maine for next April. As a teenager interested in politics, I remember the dignified Senator from Maine, Margaret Chase Smith, the first woman in U.S. history to ever be elected to both houses of Congress. Back then, Maine had an electoral message which said: “As Maine goes, so goes the nation.” More recently, the motto that you see as you enter Maine is “The way life should be.” But for the past few days, Mainers have tragically adopted a new motto: “Shelter in Place.” Suddenly, life in Maine is not the way life should be. There are eighteen less people alive today to enjoy the idyllic life Maine has to offer, eighteen less warm-hearted people to welcome visitors like you or me into their homes. All this thanks to one man, his alleged grievances, his possible mental illness, and an AK (or was it an AR-15?) However, this carnage is making us all a bit deranged as well, I believe. And there is a danger to that, as President Biden (misquoting the poet Yeats) pointed out to Israel only two weeks ago when he recalled Yeats’ warning: “Too long a suffering makes a stone of the heart.” Too many shooting make us callous, impervious to the pain we should be feeling. It makes us accepting of the status quo when we should be fighting back.
The new Speaker-of-the-House of Representatives in Washington Mike Johnson (R-LA) had predictable words to offer this morning. Only hours into his office, he said “Now is not the time” to talk about banning guns (including, I suppose, assault weapons.) He continued (speaking to Fox commentator Sean Hannity):
“At the end of the day, the problem is the human heart. It’s not guns. It’s not the weapons. . .At the end of the day, we have to protect the right of the citizens to protect themselves, and that’s the Second Amendment. And that’s why our party stands so strongly for that. . .This is not the time to be talking about legislation. We’re in the middle of that crisis right now.”
This was Speakers Johnson’s message to Maine and to America: Don’t complain about guns. We (at least the republicans) don’t want to hear it.
Of course, last week was not the time to talk about gun control legislation in Congress, because we had no Speaker in the House at all! Or, the week before that. Next week, after the families in Lewiston have buried their dead and hopefully the bad guy is caught, the discussion will be on the budget. Or aid to Israel or aid to Ukraine. Or illegal immigration. Or something else. Anything but guns. And by mid-November, there will be another massacre somewhere in the U.S., and that won’t be the time to talk about guns, either! So, my question for Speaker Johnson is: “When is the time to talk about gun legislation?” Is it now, or is it never?
Let’s have common sense here
I’m not against guns. I do not want anyone to be disarmed if they can legally possess a weapon now. And bear in mind that the law provides for certain caveats. It is perfectly legal, and should continue to be legal, to have a handgun in your night stand, or to carry a pistol in your back pack when you go camping in the wilderness. But you don’t need to drag along a weapon of war to defend yourself or hunt jackrabbits. Neither do I see a need for students to carry guns to their college classes. It’s probably reasonable, though, to have a legal weapon (pistol) in your car or rifle or shotgun in your truck. If not, how could you hunt? I’m less certain about carrying one on your person when you are “out and about” running errands, but I’m not against it if the person is properly vetted, the gun is registered and it is otherwise legal to do so. It’s probably a good idea for women to be able to carry something small and light in their purse in case they are threatened – a Ruger or a Glock, perhaps. And after all, sometimes an armed citizen does save the lives of people in a store or street because he or she has a weapon and “takes out” the chico malo before anyone else is killed.
Too long a suffering makes a stone of the heart.”
I am against the sale of automatic weapons, or after market modifications to achieve the same effect (including accessories that enhance the lethality of the weapon.)
According to NPR, five years ago there were 630,000 fully automatic weapons legally in circulation in the U.S. Does anyone think this number isn’t much higher today?
What a high velocity round does to a child
The Washington Post says an M-16 can fire 30-100 rounds in rapid succession. They note that these bullets:
“. . . can eviscerate multiple people in seconds. A single bullet lands with a shock wave intense enough to blow apart a skull and demolish vital organs. The impact is even more acute on the compact body of a small child.
“[the weapon] literally can pulverize bones, it can shatter your liver and it can provide this blast effect,” said Joseph Sakran, a gunshot survivor who advocates for gun violence prevention and a trauma surgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital.
During surgery on people shot with high-velocity rounds . . . body tissue ‘literally just crumbled into your hands.'”
And the problem doesn’t end with the weapon, itself. Add to this republican initiatives to stifle debate in the several legislatures and to appoint pro-gun judges to the bench and we now have even more to fear: silencers, rhino bullets, auto-sears, bump stocks, 3D printed weapons and so on. You don’t need a silencer to shoot squirrels and the only one to burst into your bedroom at night wearing “pounds” (i.e. an armored vest) is probably a police officer, so you need not worry (or even think about) about rhino bullets unless you intend to fire on them. Bad move. Legislation that republicans do support is the “stand your ground” policy which in so many words says that if you have the right to shoot someone(for example) who has broken into your home, you have the same right to shoot someone on the street as if it were your own home. That’s technically not true, but that is how it is perceived when someone is spoiling for a fight. You do not have to shoot some stranger you think may be a threat to you just for the hell of it if you can easily and safely avoid or evade them. Yes, you may get a rush in taking a human life, and your buddies may ply you with free drinks asking to hear your story over and over. But you’ll never be the same person you once were if you do. Nor does it look good on your resume. And you may go to jail if you do shoot someone.
What would Madison say:
James Madison was a reasonable person. When he wrote the Second Amendment, he wanted to guarantee the right of people to defend themselves. Of course, back then people owned muskets and it would take a good minute to fire a second round after the first. There were a number of steps involved in clearing and priming your weapon before you could. take a second shot. The words of the Second Amendment were modified by Congress after Madison wrote and submitted it, yet what we have in our Constitution today is the law of the land regardless of Madison’s original intentions. However, parts of the Second Amendment such as the MIlitia Clause are not as easy to understand at first blush. It is here that context and judicial precedent is especially important.
Regardless, from what I know of the framers, I doubt that any could have foreseen one person causing the deaths of twenty people in as many seconds (or less) using a firearm. And the framers would be absolutely horrified if these eviserated victims were children. On the other hand, the framers would also be appalled that we have a standing army today, but if we could explain to them the challenges that the U.S. faces in the world today, then they might drop their objection to a federal military force. And if they knew that every state had an organized militia (i.e., the National Guard), might they consider modifying the Second Amendment? We have no way of knowing.
Parting words
If you care about your children, or hundreds of innocent, helpless children crowded together in a building for classes; if you want your grandkids to survive childhood and grow into adults, to get married and have children of their own, I implore you to read this article in the Washington Post.
Nor am I going to bash the NRA. I will say that the NRA we have today is not the same NRA I grew up with and loved. The NRA in 1964 taught me how to use firearms safely and helped me secure my first hunting license.
It seems today that members of Congress put their own self-interest in getting reelected above the interest of the public and the country. This is true of many democrats as well as republicans. If you are tired of hearing about school shootings, supermarket shootings, drive-by shootings, church, synagogue and mosque shootings, then you need to write your member of Congress. Sending an e-mail to their office in Washington is even better. Asking them to “do something” about guns or “banning guns” is a nonstarter. You must have a specific, achievable proposal, like banning assault rifles.
Also, please read the names of the people who were killed in Maine. Only half have been identified as of today. If you wish to get a better idea of the number of people wounded or killed by gun violence, you can do so here.