This time, the debate has to be
about more than not offending the NRA's sensibilities.
By Donald Kaul
I’m
glad I retired five months ago.
Think
of it: I was spared writing about the presidential election, an event so
vacuous it made reality TV seem interesting. If there was any serious
discussion of an important national issue — global warming, our obesity
epidemic, transportation policy, the morality of drone attacks on civilian
populations, the environmental consequences of fracking, existential
implications of the designated hitter — I missed it.
I
was happy with the result of the presidential election but I didn’t regret not
covering it. And I was entirely content to go on not writing about things. (If
I could make a living at that, life would be perfect.)
But
then Newtown happened. A misanthropic young man who never seemed particularly
violent killed his mother and then broke into an elementary school and
massacred little kids, teachers, and the principal.
And
the very air changed. The holiday season suddenly turned somber. You looked at
the small children around you differently, as fragile, precious gifts to be
cherished and, above all, protected.
Obama
struck that note in his moving speech at the memorial service. Speaking for us
all, he said: “We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to
end them, we must change.”
Nice
words but somehow, not enough. Not nearly enough.
That’s
when I figured I should write a column about it. During my 50-year career,
every time some demented soul would take a semi-automatic gun and clean out a
post office, a school, or a picnic, I’d get up on my soap box let loose with a
withering diatribe about guns, the National Rifle Association, and weak-kneed
politicians. Did it about 75 times, give or take.
And
in every case the main effect was a spike in gun sales.
Still,
I thought I’d give it one more shot…er, chance.
Obama’s
speech was fine as far as it went but it didn’t go very far. Neither have any
of the other responses I’ve heard.
California
Senator Dianne Feinstein said she was going to introduce a bill to ban the sale
and importation of assault weapons. Great, but the bill wouldn’t apply to
weapons already out there and in defining illegal weapons it listed more than
900 exceptions.
Nine
hundred!
The
thing missing from the debate so far is anger — anger that we live in a society
where something like the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre can happen and our main
concern is not offending the NRA’s sensibilities.
That’s
obscene. Here, then, is my
“madder-than-Hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” program for ending gun
violence in America:
Repeal
the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing
and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership,
but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well regulated militia.” We
don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when
they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.
Declare
the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to
the Communist Party and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than
American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters,
clear the rubble, and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of
unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their
guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.
Then
I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders,
to the back of a Chevy pickup and drag them around a parking lot until they saw
the light on gun control.
And
if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures. None of that is going to
happen, of course. But I’ll bet gun sales will rise.
OtherWords columnist
Donald Kaul lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan. This is his first column since late
July, the month he had a heart attack and decided to take a break.
OtherWords.org