KEEPING FAITH IN GOVERNMENT - Standing with the students of Douglas Stoneman High School

The students from Douglas Stoneman High School in Parkland, Florida are an inspiration to all U.S. citizens and to all who care about the liberties defined by our nation's Constitution.  After the devastation experienced at Sandy Hook Elementary School  in Newtown Connecticut, I had drafted a letter that I didn't send because I thought two things:

First, that it was pointless to send it to my state's congressional delegation because it would fall on deaf ears.

Second, I was convinced that given the horrendous impact that event had on this nation, something surely would be done.  I was wrong on both accounts.

I have kicked myself for not sending that letter ever since, not because I believe my letter would have changed the minds of the congressional leaders of my state, but because in not saying something I was doing nothing and caving to a sense of hopelessness that can become pervasive if not checked.

What has checked my sense of hopelessness is the courage demonstrated by a group of high school students directly impacted by the horror of seeing their classmates gunned down.  What has given me hope in their generation is that when others attempted to vilify the shooter as "crazy" or a "monster," some reacted with anger and shock at the use of such language being applied to another human being. 

What has given me faith and has given me hope in and for our nation is the students of Douglas Stoneman High School who have taken up the issue of gun violence in the public space in a way that is not only poignant but influential and powerful.  Their appeals to their own state legislature and to the governing entities of our nation is truly inspiring.  More importantly, their ability to listen to those opposing gun regulation and reason without anger or vitriol demonstrates a level of maturity that often is lacking in the halls of government. 

This time I cannot sit back and say nothing while these courageous students take up a cause they shouldn't have had to.  So I am compelled by conscience to stand with them, and to that end I have sent the following letter my state's congressional delegation in Washing D.C.:

* * * * * * * * * * *  

Dear Representative Noem, Senator Rounds, and Senator Thune

In January 2013 I started to write a letter to our state’s congressional delegation after the devastating shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  I never sent that letter because I felt that surely something would be done to protect the public from a lone shooter with an automatic gun.  Nothing was done.

Since that time there have been multiple incidents of mass shootings:  of congregants having a Bible study at church in North Carolina, of patrons of night club in Orlando Florida, of an audience at an open air concert in Los Vegas, to name a few.  Here we are, five years Sandy Hook, talking about another school shooting, this time in Parkland Florida at the Douglas Stoneman High School. 

Each time something like this occurs, I go back to our nation’s Constitution and wonder why its Preamble receives such little attention in the debate about gun regulation.  

“We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Prosperity, do ordain and establish the CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.”

The Preamble to the Constitution is the one part of the Constitution that is sacrosanct and unamendable; that should it change the Constitution would be void.  Every other part of the Constitution is contextual both in its history and in its applicability, including the amendments known as the Bill of Rights.  As such, the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is also contextual both in its history and applicability.  Unlike the Preamble, the Second Amendment is not sacrosanct nor is it unamendable.  

If the Second Amendment is to be protected, it must answer to the context of the age in which it is being applied.  Congressional failure to address gun violence and regulate the proliferation and sale of military-grade guns such as the AR-15 to our nation’s civilian population is a failure of constitutional proportions. 

That Congress has done nothing to stem the sale of military-grade guns serves only to undermine the purpose of the Constitution stated in its Preamble.  As such, Congress appears negligent in establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and in securing the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity.

When this nation lacked a standing military force and adequate law enforcement entities in the late eighteenth century, Congress relied on the local citizenry to establish justice and insure domestic tranquility as mandated by the Constitution because it did not have the means to do so nationwide.  At that time, Congress acted responsibly in ratifying the Second Amendment.  A historical fact relevant to our time is that the Second Amendment was written at a time when guns were single-load weapons.

Today, we have a standing military, established law enforcement agencies, and military-grade automatic guns designed to cause massive casualties being legally marketed and sold to our civilian population with very little legal oversight. We also have a civilian population periodically targeted by individuals to whom these guns are being sold to.  The type of guns being sold and the unlimited amount of guns that can be legally owned by an individual is, in itself, a dramatic contextual shift from the time in which the Second Amendment was ratified.

When the Second Amendment was drafted, gun ownership was a necessity in providing for a well-regulated militia.  That context has change, and Congress must, for the sake of our constitutionally ordained liberties recognize the glaring fact staring our nation in the face:  It is easier to regulate things than it is to regulate people; in particular, the individual armed with an automatic gun.  This fact, so readily dismissed by many in Congress has been well established by other liberty-loving, democratic nations who have strict gun laws which have greatly reduced gun violence in those nations. 

Our mental health system certainly requires help, but improvements in mental health alone will not prevent an undetected psychopath armed with such a weapon who is intelligent and has no regard for his or her own life or that of anyone else; who if faced with the prospect of being killed will likely take out as many people possible, as was notably demonstrated in the case of the Los Vegas shooter.

What Congress can immediately do to curb gun violence is to regulate guns, a creation we humans made and something we can control.  Guns, per se, are not protected by the Second Amendment.  The Second Amendment is there to protect the basis upon which the Constitution was written, its Preamble.  In today’s context, such protection extends to the regulation of military-grade guns being sold to civilians.  

The ignored reality is that the legal sale and proliferation of military-grade guns has resulted in allowing individuals to act as militias unto themselves, vigilantes who take it upon themselves to right the wrongs they perceive others have done to them.  Any person who commits such horrendous acts will be likely diagnosed after the fact as having some form of mental health disorder that went undetected or untreated.

Perhaps the broader mental health question applicable today is why any civilian would own such a gun as an AR-15; much less numerous guns of that type.   Is it because they are led to believe that our government is the enemy or could become the enemy as some militant groups do – a sign of paranoia?  Is it the thrill of watching things being decimated for the sake of recreation as some claim – a sign of underlying insecurity and/or an expression of delusional fantasy?   Is it because Congress does nothing but tell the People of the United States that we must fend for ourselves (as in arming public school teachers) because it lacks the will to regulate a thing made by humans to cause massive casualties?

I respectfully ask you to act and end gun violence by fulfilling the mandate of our Constitution’s Preamble in this age by regulating the sale and proliferation of military-grade guns to civilians.  I am confident that the force of law will prove more effective in protecting our public spaces from gun violence than relying on the use of force by civilians armed with automatic weapons to do so. 

Sincerely,

Norman Wright

* * * * * * * * * * *

Until next time, stay faithful.