FOUR TIMES IN TEN DAYS?

When Mr. Larry King finished his well-liked TV show "Larry King Live" on CNN maybe two years ago, he was succeeded in a new but somewhat similar programme hosted by Mr. Piers Morgan.  Mr. Morgan had previously been - among other things - Editor of the English tabloid newspaper, "The News of the World".  I was never really a fan of Mr. Morgan's programme because I always felt he talked too much and vented his own views rather than listening to those of the person he was interviewing.  However, be that as it may, one thing I will always admire about him is the fact that he was never silent or withdrawing in his views about the liberal way guns are treated in the U.S.  As a result of this, it is no secret that Mr. Morgan's contract with CNN was not renewed earlier this year due to heavy pressure from organizations like the National Rifle Association.

During the past ten days there have been four deadly shooting sprees in the United States.  I just wait to see where the next one will be - no doubt next week somewhere - and what is being done about these events?   Absolutely nothing at all except that they are wonderful photo opportunities for politicians in Washington - even the President - who rush to the nearest camera and microphone and with long faces say "My prayers and thoughts are with the victims and their families and loved ones". Well, of course they are, but that doesn't solve anything.  They might as well just make a recording of those words and then just press a button and play it again when the next shooting takes place.  I am in no doubt of the fact that I shall probably have many harsh emails as a result of writing this, but we have to be practical and understand exactly what is what if anything is to be done to stop these.  One thing is painfully obvious, those in the National Rifle Association who so vehemently canvass for guns and weapons of all kinds to be available to all, are noticeably silent when these shootings take place.  Not even an word of condolence to those affected. So we have to look at everything very carefully to understand the situations.

The wording of the much quoted Second Amendment is very clear.  "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed."  I have no problem with those words, but it doesn't require a person to have a degree from the Harvard Law School to know that the United States does already have a "well regulated militia" for "the security of the state".     This was a fact recognized until fairly recently and it is only since 1977 when there was what was virtually a coup d'etat at the Annual Convention of the National Rifle Association which brought in a group of ultra political conservatives to power.  This new group pushed for a what was then a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment - one that gave individuals, not just the militia - the right to bear arms.  It was then an uphill battle for them and at first they were scorned, and Chief Justice Warren Burger - who was certainly no liberal by anyone's standards - mocked this individual rights theory as "a fraud".  But the NRA kept pushing and in 1980 it received a tremendous boost by the election of Mr. Ronald Reagan as President, as it brought a guns right enthusiast to the White House.

It didn't stop there.  Mr. Orrin Hatch, the Senator from Utah as Chairman of a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee did a report that claimed to find "clear and long-lost proof that the Second Amendment was intended as an individual right of an American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner for the protection of himself, his family and his freedom," and as a result this theory was just absorbed into the law even though the "clear and long-lost" proof was never stated.

However, in a famous court case of "The District of Columbia vs. Heller" in 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the individual rights theory but in writing his opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said that the District of Columbia could not ban handguns because "they are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self protection in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."    Alright - here we come to a most important and almost always ignored point.  Following Justice Scalia's opinion, the government cannot ban hand guns but it can ban other weapons.  How interesting.

All of the above may be long-winded, but I think it shows some points that are not generally known.  I would ask why does the National Rifle Association want to see the ordinary people going around carrying AK-47 rifles?   The NRA has never decried any of the shootings where these weapons have been used.  How can they say that the present system of "vetting" a person buying a weapon is good, when the young man who shot up the students in Seattle was known to be mentally disturbed - his parents had already warned the police about him - and had five guns all legally bought and licensed to him personally?  Something is surely amiss here.

I am sure little will be done to stop these shooting sprees, especially this year when there is a half term election coming up in October.  Those standing for election are only too anxious to hold on to their positions by not upsetting the NRA people so that they can benefit from their large contributions.  So what will happen?  More people will be shot dead and more politicians will just rush to the microphones and cameras to say "Our prayers and thoughts..........."

In a much publicized and somewhat pompous speech at West Point Military Academy a few weeks ago, Mr. Obama said that the world "looks to America as a leader".  He was right - the world looks to America as the leader in shooting rampages, as the leader where its politicians are willing to bow to pressure rather than care for the well-being and safety of its students in the universities around the country.

What a shame that is!