n a country where it’s easier to obtain a semi-automatic gun than to obtain healthcare, a fragile mind can wreak havoc on a fragile political culture. So it was on Thursday night when a shooter opened fire on police at a Black Lives Matter demonstration killing five officers and wounding at least seven others.
A couple of questions in general :
1. Can the People's Right to Peaceably Assemble, today, ever be exercised without a Large contingent of Police overseeing said exercise? They are, especially in this day and age, easily summoned if necessary, precluding the necessity of their Constant Intimidating Presence. 'Large' (presence) being the operative word.
2. Just as Al Capone was finally nailed by a technicality (income tax evasion) are these killings of Black People not equally, if not more easily, Understood and Prosecutable simply as, acts against Citizens? Citizens ( ALL of Us ) being the Owners of all said Police Departments, deadly violence against which (citizens) should be treated as the abomination it is. Sort of like HAL turning on his Humans in '2001'.
The actions of Omar Mateen and Micah Johnson are both perverse blowback from U.S. foreign and
domestic policies. Violence, overt and structural, begets violence.
The gun lobby needs to be worked against somehow. The right to keep and bear arms as delineated in the Second Amendment is not -- or should not be interpreted as being -- absolute. The gun advocates with their stupid "the only cure for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" belief cannot be continued to be allowed to win the argument with pseudo logic like that which can be easily dispensed with: how are we the innocent bystanders to be certain that the "good guy" with the gun has properly identified the bad guy and has taken aim with sufficient care to not shoot to kill anyone who isn't certifiably armed and bad?
Their desire to be shoot-'em-up heroes, escapees from old timey cowboy movies ought to be embarrassments to them, but obviously that's not how it is.
To allow as this line of so-called thought permits unlimited uninhibited vigilanteism which is a guarantee that people who ought not to be shot and killed will be.
The "be armed, it is your right" fanatics are unwilling to even discuss limitations. What are they? They insist that the right to keep and bear arms includes automatic weapons even though such things did not exist when the Second Amendment was written and ratified. What about shoulder held grenade launchers? Depleted uranium ammunition? Heat seeking missiles? Tactical nuclear weapons? Antiaircraft guns? Does the Second Amendment allow them too?
The Supreme and its lower courts seem to be unwilling to decide where the limits should be, or what the interpretation of the First Clause of the Second Amendment "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" means in relation to that keep and bear thing.
The gun lobby continues to use the old scare tactic and say that any limitation on gun ownership and possession means "they're coming to take your guns away." So long as that rhetorical gambit can be used successfully, then people who don't deserve to be will keep being shot and killed unnecessarily.