Newtown killings: A Case of Victim Misidentification

In the debate over gun control I have observed something very odd. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre the debaters can’t seem to agree on where the tragedy lies. The opponents of gun control feel the U.S. Constitution is under attack. The supporters of gun control highlight the helplessness of those murdered. It becomes a question of who is the victim--those murdered or those who might someday be murdered.

In this oratorical contest one side speaks of human trauma frighteningly real and increasingly frequent. The other side takes a professorial stance about how the Constitution must stand unchinked or democratic freedom is doomed. It is like two wrestlers circling and grabbing, trying to get a grip on the other who won’t engage in proper terms.

The oddity of this verbal wrestling match was lucidly displayed on national TV this week when Senators Ted Cruz and Diane Feinstein got into it. Cruz thought he could trump Feinstein by quoting the Constitution. He asked her if she thought prohibiting citizens the right to own a gun is constitutional despite (his reading of) the Second Amendment. Feinstein countered with a poignant statement of her first-hand experience with killing scenes (the Harvey Milk-George Moscone assassinations), the senselessness of unrestrained access to military style assault weapons, and her experience as a sworn defender of the Constitution in long public service. In response, Cruz characterized her eloquent appeal as irrelevant emotion, as if he had the high ground.

It does not take a lawyer to discover that Cruz’s patronizing stance was a display of feet planted on a sheet of sand. You only need to know how to read, and have a passing acquaintance with American history to see this. A glance at the easily accessible and clearly phrased, one-sentence-long Second Amendment will do the trick. The first half of the sentence, usually ignored, states the narrow reason for the amendment and honors “regulation.” (See my recent blog of December 22) One does not even need the advantage of Feinstein’s extensive service as a prominent Senator (which freshman senator Cruz offhandedly dismissed) to get the Constitution right. Besides, Feinstein pointed out that Cruz mischaracterized her proposed legislation as broadly “prohibiting” when instead it specifies “exemptions.”

As you listen to the arguments back and forth about gun control, ask yourself who the victims are. There is no denying the identification of the dead bodies, who more often than not are innocent bystanders randomly killed by crazed gunmen.

“Potential” victimization sketched as a philosophical argument drawn from a misreading of the Second Amendment is unjustified paranoia. Further, it stands undressed as cold disregard for palpable tragedy when it happens, repeatedly.

Doug Good