Letter: Responding to ISD columnist’s take on the Nashville shooting
April 3, 2023
In a recent opinion piece for the Iowa State Daily, Caleb Weingarten wrote that “although guns are a right, they are also most definitely a privilege.” I write this letter in order to consider the ramifications of Weingarten’s response and offer an alternative to how to protect children in our schools.
The right to possess weapons clearly cannot both be a right and a privilege. In the case of guns, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Thus, guns are not a privilege that can be permitted or excluded from certain individuals. In fact, removing the ability to possess weapons often is tied to systemic oppression. The right to possess a gun is inextricably tied to the crucial right to defend oneself from the evils of the world.
In his piece, Weingarten blames Tennessee lawmakers for their failure to pass “red flag laws” as the main problem. The red flag bill proposed in the state Senate would have allowed family, friends or law enforcement to petition the court to prohibit individuals from purchasing or possessing a firearm.
While this may seem reasonable, the law would have permitted judges to take away guns from victims, not potential criminals. In addition, such a system depends on someone reporting the would-be shooter to the court.
More importantly, the implementation of red flag laws is dangerous to the integrity of our constitutional republic. No group or authority should be able to restrict the rights of all citizens because of the evils of a few.
Our Constitution further addresses our rights in the Fifth Amendment; “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Seizing someone’s guns without due process is unconstitutional because one cannot be deprived of the right to property without due process, especially those property rights addressed in the Constitution.
Thus, we come to an intriguing conundrum. If someone suffers from a mental illness, can we simply strip away their constitutional rights? What constitutes a mental illness, and who decides? A significant number of political figures and even some psychiatrists say transgenderism is a mental illness. Can we then take away the constitutional rights of this group of individuals? I say no.
Then, in a world where guns cannot be taken away from citizens who may commit heinous crimes, how are we to protect ourselves, or in this case, our children? The answer is not that schools become gun-free zones. In fact, the campus was selected by the killer instead of a secondary location because the school contained less security. The best method to reduce the risk of criminals selecting our schools would be to make the schools difficult targets.
Decreasing the target risk of schools can come in many different forms. First, designing buildings with automatically closing or locking doors and adding separation between large groups of students can help prevent easy access to students. Increasing the number of school resource officers, or even allowing teachers to be trained and armed, would clearly boost security.
Finally, creating plans, systems and training in case of violent incidents can mentally and physically prepare students and teachers for a quick response. A combination of all the above methods and more would help lessen schools’ risk as a target.
Red flag laws are dangerous in precedent and effect and may not be sufficient in stopping many shootings. Instead, we need to ensure schools are protected to the best of our abilities using common sense security measures.
Nuke | Apr 4, 2023 at 1:55 pm
Who is Deborah Stoner? What merit do they have to be published on this platform? Even if they are a student, that should be indicated somewhere on this page.
Graydon P Gunzenhauser | Apr 4, 2023 at 10:35 am
You’re goddamn right! gun control is not the answer. better security and defensive measures are what is needed.
Nuke | Apr 4, 2023 at 9:24 am
Not to fret, gun enthusiasts. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere; not with top GOP lawmakers and several Dems in the pockets of the gun lobby. Like so much else, follow the problem and you will find money at the root: institutionalized corruption.
I find it fascinating that the only part of 2A that gun rights folks regularly quote and have committed to memory is the part about “shall not be infringed.” I’ll print the rest of the 2nd Amendment here so those of you who don’t know it can commit it to memory and reflect on the full meaning of 2A: “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.” It is pretty convenient to leave out the part about “well regulated Militia.” It’s pretty convenient to leave out the hardest part of 2A to come to terms with in the AR-15 era.
Stoner’s op-ed amounts to two things. One: more complaining because certain folks don’t want to fill out a little bit of paperwork for a weapon of war. The response to my comment will start with “Where does it end?” Well, instead of complaining about the possibility of a little inconvenient paperwork, why not support red flag laws on a trial basis, much like 1994’s Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. In the ten years that law was in place, the rate of gun deaths fell precipitously. While the 1994 law also led to mass incarceration (making yet another set of businesspeople happy: the privatized prison owners and their lobby), certainly something could be learned from that experiment and lead to improvements in the quality of life for all, even those who deem it unconstitutional to be required to fill out a few forms and wait a few days for their guns. For a people to claim to uphold law and order, there certainly is a lot of hemming and hawing about proposals to improve law and order.
The second thing this op-ed amounts to is parroting the agenda of religiously compromised scientists and political hacks. Do a quick search on Dr. Paul McHugh (whom Stoner refers as “some psychiatrists” and links us to a news agency with a Judeo-Christian editorial board and backers). Look at McHugh’s record and try not to be thunderstruck by the agenda and bias inherent in his body of work. And click on the link for “significant number of political figures” to have your intelligence insulted by the likes of Ben Shapiro, an agenda-driven hack if ever there was one.
I implore the Iowa State Daily to continue printing pieces that run counter to the narratives being planted in this paper by the likes of Young Americans for Liberty.
David Jackson | Apr 5, 2023 at 6:30 pm
“….in the pockets of the gun lobby”
-Nuke
You misspelled: are not traitors (insurrectionists if you will) to the Constitution by pushing laws in direct opposition to it. Lol, follow the money, it’s meaningless compared to what the gun control lobby has done with influencing law students and the media, yet there are enough Americans on the right, in the center, and on the dwindling moderate left who understand the necessity of the 2nd Amendment, and that comprehensive violence statistics matter more than cherry-picked, hyperbolic, misinformation pushing centralized authority.
Seriously, if strict gun control is such a good idea, why isn’t there a push for a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment…and not dark money funded faux protests and lobbying only directly after media hyped tragedies which almost always wouldn’t have been prevented by the very gun control laws they’re being exploited by to push?
I find it fascinating, almost as fascinating that the old strawman argument that the only part of 2A that gun rights supporters regularly quote is “shall not be infringed” when the gun control lobby seems to forget that all able bodies Americans are the unorganized militia and well-regulated meant healthily structure and properly equipped when the 2A was written, not he modern left’s populace control fantasy of highly restricted.
“1994’s Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. In the ten years that law was in place, the rate of gun deaths fell precipitously.”
-Nuke
Time always seems to begin when convenient for agenda pushers, again the comprehensive facts show that gun deaths were falling before the 1994-2004 “assault weapons ban” took effect. A fact you are either unaware of or purposely didn’t mention. Here are some more facts on that law for you. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004 did NOT prevent any mass shootings and had no significant effect on violent crime according to DOJ National Institute of Justice research. The study commissioned by the DOJ found no evidence that the ban, passed in 1994 and expiring in 2004, had had any effect on gun violence and concluded that “should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” As links are no longer allowed on the Daily’s forum, feel free to look this up and know about what you’re really advocating for.
The rest of this is just partisan name calling. I’d love to watch you debate Shapiro, unlike the left I don’t idolize everyone on the right, but at least the man usually argues on the bases if fact and not emotional manipulation. With what you demonstrably think of the right to keep and bear arms, not to mention due process, you should just come out and say that your handle on here is short for Nuke the Constitution.
Shane | Apr 4, 2023 at 8:52 am
Wherever there are more guns, more people die.