Addressing school shootings
The impressive young students who experienced the latest massacre of classmates in Parkland, Florida have compellingly expressed their intent to challenge legislators at the state and national level. Defenders of the status quo are heavily supported by the gun lobby. The big fear is from primary challengers who are 100 percent aligned and funded by the NRA. This breeds intense fear in legislators, especially GOP and red state Democrats. The antidote is an outraged electorate.
The students who are the catalyst for this movement will soon be of voting age, and their fervent cries for action may have finally awakened a movement across America to save our kids. Politicians could suffer the consequences of morally outraged voters. However, this campaign will take time, and even if AR-15 sales are banned, there are five million assault weapons already in the hands of gun owners. Immediate and effective security actions must be taken, while also combating the threat of assault weapons.
It will be virtually impossible for weapons of war to be removed from the hands of all deranged and unstable people. Background checks are inadequate to find the next shooter, not to mention that 40 percent of gun sales occur through private transactions or gun shows, mostly without background checks. Unfortunately, this case shows the holes in the background check system, even when huge red flags were being waved that the killer was troubled and making threats missed by law enforcement.
There is only one way to stop an assault weapon from being brought on a school campus: TSA-style entry checks, with armed security at a single entry point. It will be expensive, but the cost should be paid entirely by gun manufacturers and sales outlets. It is foolhardy to think that arming teachers or allowing concealed carry by students is a good idea, as has been proposed by some gun advocates. For the long term, banning assault weapon sales is imperative. Current owners of assault weapons should be required to register their guns and submit to a new background check process to identify those whose criminal record or mental health has subsequently disqualified them from gun ownership. It is patently absurd that we currently require dogs to be licensed, but not gun owners. And any owner of an assault weapon who fails to submit to this process should be prosecuted, and the right to own a firearm rescinded.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It is arguable that there is a need for a well-regulated militia in modern society, given that we have the most capable military in the world, plus the state National Guard. Since assault weapons are exclusively weapons of war, and no longer necessary to protect state security, they should not be protected by the Second Amendment. On the other hand, individuals should still have the right to keep and bear arms for their own protection, and other legitimate purposes such as target shooting, and hunting. There is no conflict with the 2nd Amendment by regulating assault gun ownership, just as owning sawed-off shotguns and machine guns have been outlawed for many years.
Thomas Oatway Valencia