Without a doubt, the Parkland High School students have changed the discussion on gun violence. On December 3rd, one of our members, John Owens, gave a reflection on his tragic experience with gun violence and shared his in-depth knowledge about it. In the hopes of more dialogue and informed decisions, I thought I would address the elephant in the room … the Second Amendment.
The right to bear arms is not sacrosanct. In particular, the Constitution also guarantees the right to life. So if the right to bear arms is in conflict with the right to life, our elected officials need to adjudicate.
Regardless, something missing in the Second Amendment debate is the difference between life today and life in 1776. More specifically, 1776 America was an agrarian society where their food, shelter, water, and protection from armed thugs were all locally sourced. If somebody decided to over-throw the government, their next meal would look a lot like their previous one.
Not so today.
As Hurricane Katrina demonstrated, a breakdown in infrastructure creates an ensuing chaos, and you’ll probably be shooting your neighbor rather than your government. As Venezuela is demonstrating, you’ll lose your job and hyper inflation will evaporate your savings.
I’m no expert, but any sincere discussion of HOW the Second Amendment protects us from a totalitarian government would probably look more like states seceding from the union than indiscriminately blowing up government.
If so, why not have the states manage a gun registry? And besides guns and ammo, we’ll need to make sure state and local governments have the resources and infrastructure to go it alone.
I prefer the non-violent tools in the Constitution for amending it; however, I also think that more independent communities will shift money from Wall Street to Main Street and reduce income inequality.
So, in that regard, I think we can all agree to make our communities more stable and vibrant.
— Joe Criscione, President