James Madison and other Founding Fathers had a role, albeit it 230 years ago, in today’s hot-button issue — gun control.
In the 1787-88 struggle to ratify the U.S. Constitution, debate raged to the point some states threatened to secede, an outcome that eventually did occur over slavery, in 1861.
Madison, and others, came to think some individual rights needed clarification, beyond the scope of the Constitution.
A salve that brought all into the fold was the Bill of Rights. Madison proposed a number of amendments, among them the second that leaned on common law and state constitutions to ensure the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
Ten eventually were adopted, with the aim to give states power and citizens rights that otherwise might have been abridged by the federal government.
When the Second Amendment was adopted, the extent of weaponry was smooth-bore, single-shot rifles — slow to shoot and inaccurate. Today’s rifles come in a multitude of makes, fire many rounds quickly, and, depending on skill of shooter, with pin-point accuracy.
AN OUTPOURING of demands for gun control occur after each horrific mass shooting, such as last week’s tragedy in Sutherland Springs, Texas. The single thread among them is that admonitions mostly are devoid of details.
Just how do we go about coming to gun-control measures that will effectively stop, or at least substantially reduce, senseless rampages that cut lives short, both those that occur daily throughout the nation and ones so massive and devastating they bring the nation to its knees.
Any form of gun control would be difficult in the U.S., in large measure because of the proliferation of weapons of all sorts — rifles, shotguns and handguns — already in the hands of law-abiding and well-meaning citizens.
Estimates range to well over 325 million total; that may be low. In addition, 15 million, maybe more, assault rifles are thought to be sequestered in gun safes, cabinets, closets and behind the doors of many homes.
One approach frequently mentioned is to outlaw the sale of assault rifles, designed to kill people in war, or for tactical use by law enforcement officers.
Reducing or ending sales through registered dealers would limit their possession somewhat, but would not reduce those already in hand.
Removing the deadly rifles might be done to some extent, as the Australians did, by a public buy-back. The chances of that occurring in the U.S. would be little more than cosmetic without force of law. It is doubtful that approach would find traction in Congress and as long as Donald Trump is in the White House, it would stop there.
The alternative is stricter background checks and enforcement of procedures already in place.
In the Texas incident, the shooter’s history of violence should have derailed his ability to purchase a weapon — had the military released it to the Justice Department.
Thorough background checks would help uncover disqualified buyers and over time reduce the overall number.
Beyond that, what is there to do in a reasonable frame going forward?
Not much, we suspect.
THE CHALLENGE is daunting: How do we find a way to prevent guns from being used for violence without infringing on people’s rights to own such weapons.
— Bob Johnson
