Musings on Mass Shootings, Part 1: The Second Amendment

After a few conversation threads on FB, I've had several thoughts about the shooting in Connecticut and, well, all the other shootings we've had (so far) this year and all the gun deaths that go unreported because they're not good-looking, affluent, and/or white people dying.

First, let's get this one out of the way: the big hullabaloo is about The Almighty Second Amendment.

As one FB friend pointed out, we don't give much of a hoot these days on what The Founding Fathers' original intent was regarding the rights of women or Black people (we've allowed President Obama to be elected president TWICE, and he's not even supposed to be a FULL PERSON according to the Original Intent of The Almighty Founding Fathers!!! oh, wait... is that why Congress has refused to work with the Prez? Because he's only three-fifths of a person?) We've realized The Founding Fathers, omnipotent and all-knowing as they were, were... um... how can I put this... WRONG about some things.

*watches for lightning*

*none strikes*

*carries on*

Isn't the whole idea of amendments to the Constitution kind of proof that The Almighty Founding Fathers kind of... knew that they did not know EVERYTHING? That things may change and changes may need to be made as things change?

If the right for citizens to own personal arsenals were that key to the existence and success of this country, shouldn't that have been part of the original Constitution, instead of merely an amendment?

However, let's leave all that over there for a second.

The Almighty Second Amendment, according to the National Archives, reads as follows:

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.

(That must have been a severe comma surplus they had going on back in Revolutionary times. Were they that angry with the King they had to not only whoop his army, but also butcher his language? But I digress...)

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" because we need those people to be "a well-regulated militia" because such "well-regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State."

Have the people clamoring about the Second Amendment read the Second Amendment? Doesn't it say right there "well-regulated"?? So why are we against regulations? Good ones, that would keep the militia, these armed people who keep and bear arms, well regulated?

Oh, yeah... and that "militia" part? Doesn't that clearly indicate that the people who keep and bear arms are in this "well-regulated militia" (because that's the reason we're not infringing on their right to keep and bear their arms)? So... are all gun owners enlisted in the Army Reserves? And if not WHY NOT?? Don't you want to make The Founding Fathers proud?? Don't you want to honor their wishes and Original Intent??

How can you be a "well-regulated militia" if you're not in an organized group, like the Army Reserves? Or better yet, actual military service? You can't sit in your house with your guns and claim to be part of "a well-regulated militia." Sorry, NO.

The Founding Fathers, your buddies, gave you (after they thought about it for a while, since they didn't include it in the real document to begin with) the right to defend your country, not your house. Don't put words in The Founding Fathers' mouths, just because they're dead. That's not nice or fair.

Look, I'm not saying that I personally believe every person who wants to own a gun needs to enlist in the Army (or other Armed Forces) in order to earn the privilege of having a gun in hir house. All I'm saying is that if you're going to use the Second Amendment as your reason, then you'd better know what it says and what it means. Unless you're ready to discuss establishing some good regulations on gun ownership and perhaps imposing some civic duty components into gun ownership, please STFU about the Second Amendment.

(PS: I'm sure none of what I've written here is original or revolutionary. But it's the first time I've thought of it and the first time I've said it, and this is my blog so there. I get to say what I want, no matter how many other great minds have said the same thing before me.)

This post got kind of long (who, me, rambling?? What?? Who'd a thunk it...) so I'm going to stop here. (That, and I sort of forgot my other brilliant thoughts while posting this one. Let me revisit those FB threads and take notes this time.) But hey, kids, stay tuned!

My day, some reading material, and guns in schools

For those of you who were wondering, I finally went running today. Woke up at 7:00, ran, gave myself sore calves, met with my tutoring student, ate real food for lunch (cage-free eggs from vegetarian-fed hens), and took three massive crates of classroom stuff and a couple boxes of education books up to my classroom. All in all, a pretty productive day. (No, I didn't do anything with the stuff in my classroom. That's on the schedule for tomorrow.)

How did I accomplish all this in one day? I kept the laptop closed. (Until now, of course.) Remember my friend Google Reader? Yes, the one otherwise known as a blogger's crack-cocaine. Guess what I've found now?!?

Teacher blogs.

I could spend hours here.

This post, from The Daily Grind, made me think about how I view, and consquently treat, my students. Probably should print it out and keep it in my gradebook, so I'm constantly reminded to look at my students as what they have the potential to become, not merely as what they are (or what labels we've affixed to them).

Now, this other post, from On Teaching, made me cringe. (Not the post - the news story.) Harold ISD, somewhere north(ish?) of here, is going to allow its teachers to bring guns to school. Because of potential school shootings.

The district has a total of 110 students, in one building. But they're close to a highway, which makes them "a target." For what?!?

School shootings happen when a kid is mad at another kid - or, in Columbine's case, mad at a whole lot of kids. The mad kid then takes Daddy's gun (Daddy is a responsible gun-owner, but kids know how to gain access to things. That's what kids do), takes it to school, and kills someone. So now we're going to eliminate the middle man, and put the guns right there in the schools?

Kids are smarter than most adults tend to think they are. If your teacher is carrying a gun, the kids are going to know. They are going to find out - trust me. At the high school where I used to teach, not five minutes into the class period one of my students asked me if I'd gotten engaged over the winter break. She noticed I was wearing a ring on my left hand - not a traditional-looking engagement ring, just a ring. You think they're not going to notice a gun-shaped lump under my clothes?

An old boyfriend told me stories of how he and his buddies would hide Mrs. So-and-So's prized possession, a bust of Shakespeare. This became a game - she would always stash it somewhere safe and secure before class, because she knew the boys liked to take it from her, but the boys always found a way to get it. Always. Even though it was hidden under lock and key.

What's going to happen to a gun?

If any one of the boys at my high school decided he wanted to take my gun from me, he'd win. I can assure you a high school boy - especially those football players - can overpower me. What if four or five of them decide to play a little prank on me? On any teacher? They don't have to be doing it to be mean; they don't even need to have the intention to keep or use the gun after they wrestle it from you - mob mentality (and high school is, for the most part, mob mentality on steroids) doesn't need a reason or a rational train of thought. But guess what's very likely to happen during the scuffle.

Why open up this can of worms? Is this district really in that much danger? Why on Earth can't they take the money the "crisis training" (and lawsuits) will cost, and hire a cop? Or move the freaking building?

If you read the comments on the Star-Telegram story, they're appalling. The overwhelming majority of people think this is a good idea. Some even claim to be teachers. I don't what their classrooms look like, but in my classroom, carrying a gun would NOT make life easier in any way, shape, or form. I Googled Harold ISD, and found a "mommy" discussion board, which I was sure would condemn this action... nope, again, all the moms thought it was a great idea. Okay, not all the moms, but, again, the overwhelming majority supported it.

Why is this not more in the news? Are they actually going to go through with it?

WHY AREN'T MORE PEOPLE APPALLED?

School starts one week from today. Is Harold ISD actually going to go through with this? For no good reason (or, definitely, no good enough reason)?

What's going to happen to the rest of us, once this precedent is set?