Once again we have been confronted with a tragedy of epic proportions. Twenty elementary children and seven adults have been brutally murdered by a mentally disturbed person using a firearm that many feel should be banned because they have little real knowledge of firearms.
Once again, the blame is put upon an inanimate object and not placed squarely where it should be. “And just where should the blame be placed?” you may ask. The answer is simple; with the politicians and the Supreme Court of the United States. But not in the way you may be thinking.
What no one is discussing is the Olmstead Act, mainly because many average Americans have never heard of this act. This act is probably the primary cause of the mass shootings we have experienced in recent years.
What is the Olmstead Act? In June of 1999, the Supreme Court ruled that mentally disturbed persons could not be held in institutions against their will if they could be placed in mainstream society because it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In brief, two women identified only as L.C. and E. W. were being confined in a Psychiatric unit in Georgia. Their treatment professionals decided they could be treated on an outpatient basis. According to the Legal Information Institute “Respondents L. C. and E. W. are mentally retarded women; L. C. has also been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and E. W., with a personality disorder.”
Does this sound familiar? Has not almost every single perpetrator of mass shootings in the last twenty years been described had having “a personality disorder” or some other mental defect?
Those that scream for more gun control are only deluding themselves or trying to force their politicians to come up with some sort of feel good legislation that does not solve this problem.
First, a change to the Constitution would be necessary, repealing or changing the 2nd Amendment. There is little chance of this becoming a reality. It is no accident that the 2nd Amendment is the one that gives us the right to bear arms and comes immediately after the Amendment that guarantees free speech. Without the 2nd, the first would soon be gone.
Next, we would have to ban or severely restrict the internet. Instructions for making bombs, poisons, homemade guns and knives, and other weapons are ubiquitous. Timothy McVeigh parked a homemade bomb in a rented truck in front of the Murrah Federal Building on 19 April, 1995. The bomb killed 168 people, including 19 children. No firearms were involved.
Lastly, even if it came to pass that all guns were to be banned in the hands of private citizens, does anyone really think that all the guns would go away? Quite the opposite; as has already been the case, in fear of the run up to full disarmament, guns sales would skyrocket.
People would hide their weapons in an offsite location. The black market for firearms would explode. Banning the sale of guns here in America simply means that guns would be procured from another country like Mexico.
The firearm is not the problem, and the attempt to confiscate all the legally owned firearms in the nation would probably not fare well. Law abiding Americans would become outlaws overnight in the attempt to maintain their right to protect themselves.
“Suppose the Second amendment said “A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.” Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?” - Robert Levy, Georgetown University Professor