Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's passing is a shock to die-hard conservatives for good reason. He was the bastion and spokesperson of the originalist interpretation of the Constitution, which meant any law had to divine the original intentions of the founding white male fathers of our nation.
The two students and two teachers at Appalachee High School were killed by a 14-year old student with an AR-15 assault rifle has brought back the debate on the causes of such gun violence than kills more than 30,000 Americans every year.
Wednesday’s mass shooting marked the 45th school shooting of 2024 and the deadliest US school shooting since the March 2023 massacre at The Covenant School in Nashville,” said CNN.
Military-style assault rifles had been banned for 10 years during the Clinton administration, but the Republican-led Bush administration didn’t renew the ban. Why? One man, SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia, was almost solely responsible for the Supreme Court ruling that legalized assault rifles for use by common citizens.
I wrote about it in Huffington Post at the time of Scalia’s death in 2016.
“Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's passing is a shock to die-hard conservatives for good reason. He was the bastion and spokesperson of the originalist interpretation of the Constitution, which meant any law had to divine the original intentions of the slave-owning, landowning, founding white male fathers of our nation, which excluded women and non-landowning males (and slaves, of course) from representation.”
So that meant turning the clock back at least one century to a time when the white male patriarchy still ruled, which was a much less democratic time. Scalia's most noted opinion was to expand Second Amendment gun owners' rights, which 'protected' every citizen's right to own a gun almost without restriction, because he convinced the majority of SCOTUS that the Second Amendment right to bear arms also protected an individual's right of self-defense.
The result has been record gun sales and gun deaths (30,000+ per year), as well as mass shootings, and no limit to the purchase of military-style assault rifles with unlimited magazines. Another little-noted result was the higher incidence of gun violence in households with guns, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
In fact, "Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual's risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170 percent," said the Law Center. "Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that "persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home." This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual's risk of death by homicide by 90 percent.
Whereas other developed countries without that Second Amendment 'right', such as Australia, do not allow the purchase of a gun for self-defense to be a sufficient reason for owning such a weapon. And Australia has not had a single incidence of mass shootings since 1996 and the passing of its gun control legislation.
Does it make sense for anyone to own a military-style assault rifle for self-defense when it was manufactured for wartime? The definition of the word, assault, means just that. It was made to assault an enemy during wartime. What purpose could it have in a home, even as a semi-automatic—where children live?
Harlan Green © 2024
Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen
No comments:
Post a Comment