guns, rights, militia and other problems related

In the recent week since the Virgina Tech masacre, the anniversary of the Columbine school shooting and the NASA murder/suicide, I have heard and read a few comments on what can and can not be done. These range from both extremes of take away all guns to give everyone guns. Here are some of the more interesting mentions that I have heard that I had to think about as strange.

NewsNet had an interview with one survivor of the Columbine School Shooting. Apparently this individual was shot something like 6 times or so and was so close to deaths door that when he got to the emergency room at the hospital he claims that they called down to the morgue and told them to get a place set up for him cause he was on his way very soon. After that was said the lady doing the interview actually asked the question, or maybe it was a statement but the guy thought it was a question and needed to answer it, "and you did not die?". To which the answer from the guy was "yes, I did not die". Nice to know that a walking dead zombie was not in the interview room. They then talked about the shooting and she asked him "do you think that if the students had guns at the school then perhaps many lives could have been saved and they could have defended themselves?" His answer was "I dont think that would be a good idea because when the police arrived on the scene, how can they tell who is the gunman and who are students defending themselves?" Yeah, I am thinking that if there are 25 students opening fire on one student that is hiding behind a barricade and who is returning fire, I am going with the one student being the lone gunman and the 25 students being the defenders. If there are only two students shooting at each other it might be a little more difficult, however not impossible. Easy solution? announce to the students to cease fire, lay down their weapons and lay down on the floor. No getting up, no walking away, no coming out from their defensive positions, simply drop the guns, hit the floor and sprawl. State this command about 3 times and then on the 4th time give the added bonus of "OR ELSE". Anyone caught firing rounds after the OR ELSE is considered and enemy and you shoot to wound. Take out a leg, an arm, anything non-vital and then go in and sort out the mess. If one student drops his weapon and the other keeps firing after a few warnings are given, then regardless of how the person came in to the school (defender/offender) they are now graduated to an offender and the police can assume malicious intent.

I have to laugh at the solution of 'give everyone guns' because I remember the song "Let There Be Guns" by The Arrogant Worms where they actually say:

There'd be no more crime, 'cause everybody'd have a gun!
woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun
Nobody'd ever get shot, 'cause everybody'd have a gun! (Makes sense!)
woudn't it be great if everybody had a gun

Funny thing is, this song is made in jest and funny humour, people that are saying that students lives could have been saved if they were all packing heat are made seriously. I find it strange how people want to turn the new age back into the old wild west. People walking around carrying rifles, shot guns and six shooters at their side 'just in case'. Mind you, back then it was 'just in case' of rattle snakes, wolves, coyotes whereas now the 'just in case' is terrorists, disgruntled employees, suicidal people who want to take a few people with them possibly so that they can be remembered for their horrible acts. Similiar deadly vermin, different forms and times.

However, there is the other side of the coin where people are saying that if there were no guns, this wouldnt have happened. If it wasnt so easy for the people to get their hands on weapons they wouldnt be able to stroll into schools and kill innocent children. For some reason when I heard that I got a flash back of a Family Guy episode. Somehow there was a huge tragedy and the Griffins create a new city and all their friends become high members of the counsel where Peter is the head leader. However, there is a controversy on weapons and if they should have them (townsfolk say no more guns/weapons since they caused the problem, Peter wants them) and the Griffins are driven out of town. The townsfolk then take all the guns and burn them in a big pile. As they are watching the guns being destroyed, the people are attacked by a band of mutated Stewie heads that have octopi bodies. As the people are being killed, screaming out for defence and all, one guy turns to another and says "remember you asked me the definition of irony the other day and I couldnt give you an example..well, here you go" at which point he is jumped upon by a mutated Stewie head and killed. I wonder if the people wanting to get rid of all weapons would keep the same position if they read in the papers that a house was broken into by two men with steel baseball bats and the father was murdered outright and the 13 year old daughter and mother were beaten to death after being raped, but this could have been prevented if the father (an accountant who was no brawn match for the men, even if they had no baseball bats) had a small fire arm in the house to defend his house and family.

Then there are those that bring up their right to 'bare arms' as stated in the American Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html) However, I have read their right a couple of times and have realized that it is sort of open to interpretation and not really set down. For instance, it reads:

Amendment II
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.

Now, you can read it one way and say that this right is talking about a well regulated Militia and not the common citizen on the street. What is a Militia?

mi·li·tia –noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia

Now, by reading both the Bill of Rights and the definition of Militia, I think it is possible to read it in two different fashions. You can take it the one way that all people are fundamentally allowed arms as given by the rights and freedoms, but you can also take it in a way to read that only those that are ready to defend the country of enemies (both foreign and domestic) should have guns. Could it be that the main thing in all the definitions that stands out is the simple word of 'soldier', distinguished apart from professional soldiers, but still in the end soldiers. What do soldiers do with guns and weapons? they respect the weapon and they respect life. So, in that standard, only those people responsible and mature enough to own and respect a fire arm can be considered a militia member and therefore only they can carry arms. Though mind you the 3rd definition states that all able bodied men considered by law eligible for military service can be considered a militia, in which case, any male over the ages of 21 can own arms. So, in this case, it is not a case of maturity, respect and honour but of chronological age and that is it. So to look at the last part of the right to bare arms and say "see, it says that I have a right to keep and bare arms" without reading the first part of 'militia/soldier necessary to the freedom of the state' is only taking the fun part of the right and not the responsibility part of that right. To have a fire arm to defend yourself, your land, your family against enemies of the state trying to take away your way of life is one thing. To have a firearm because you want to go and 'teach that bully from 12th grade a lesson' is something totally different. So I guess in a fashion, both sides of the argument are correct. Since those that want to keep and bear arms are probably the weekend warrior/militia people that are respecting guns for what they are and for their use in defence of the American way of life. Those that don't want guns are those that don't want to be part of the militia. Those that have the arms and use them to do bad things (like the school shootings) are not grouped in the militia category and therefore the militia category should not be punished.

In the end, there is no 2+2=4 answer to this equation. There is no agreed set of facts that we can sit down, agree on and then come up with a solid answer that is logical and correct. Were we can all agree that shooting unarmed students in a school is cowardly and wrong, we can not agree as to a possibly solution to this problem. How can you teach respect for a fire arm if we can not have a fire arm, how can you have a fire arm and not be taught respect for that fire arm? This is a problem that will go round and round til the cows come home. All I know is that in the immortal words of the Arrogant Worms "...we get sunburned when we exercise our right to bear our arms..we are proud to be Canadian."