Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown.
From the past century to this, the geometry of killing strangers in public places has morphed from victimizing famous individuals to unknown crowds as the technology for wanton murder has proliferated.
This week, the sight of a president pleading for small changes in laws that make slaughterhouses out of schools, churches and shopping centers is sickening evidence of a Second Amendment insanity gripping America since one Supreme Court Justice handed gun owners a license to kill five years ago.
The Constitutional Amendment 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.”
From 1939 until the Court’s 5-4 decision in June 2008, the prevailing legal view held that the Amendment did not confer on individuals the right to own weapons of mass murder.
The 2008 reversal was voiced by Justice Antonin Scalia, appointed by Ronald Reagan, who ironically was himself the victim of a deranged shooter early in his presidency, holding that it granted a right to “law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
Yet even that change was softened by Scalia’s warning: “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Since then, abetted by NRA blackmail of lawmakers, the perversion of the Second Amendment has reached the point where even Barack Obama, in issuing his executive orders and pleading with Congress for small changes in gun restrictions, prefaces his plea by acknowledging Second Amendment “rights.”
At what point does mass insanity start to change? How many more men, women and children will have to lose their lives in split seconds before the madness of those who govern our lives stops matching that of those who use weapons of war in settings that once were safe and secure?
As the President is attacked for overreaching with his modest attempts to reverse the prevailing irrationality, where is the outrage of those who not only approve his efforts but want him to go much further? Who will push him to save the lives of those who don't yet vote and never may unless the gun lovers lose?