GUN DEBATE: 18th century decision, 21st century response
Panama lawyer, Juan Ramón Vallarino López presented his views on last week’s Parkland High School, Florida. slaughter, in an opinion piece in La Prensa on February 24 mirroring widely held views outside the Washington bubble and around the world.
At an open town hall, several students and parents asked questions and made pronouncements. In my opinion, the situation revolves around the following aspects.
- The right to buy and bear arms that is contemplated in article 2 of United States Constitution. This article dates from the 18th century and apparently was introduced by pressure from states that wanted to protect their citizens against the federal government.
Nowadays this sounds strange, but if we read the work of Federalist Hamilton, we can see that the states resented and feared to surrender their sovereignty and powers to the federal government. This attitude explains a fear that today sounds out of place because obviously, the federal government is not going to attack any citizen, at least in a way that justifies the use of weapons.
- Control of the sale and possession of weapons. I heard four positions: a) Total freedom to buy and have weapons. b) Prohibition on the sale of weapons to people who have had mental problems. c) Prohibition on the sale of weapons to children under 21, currently the provision only reaches those under 18 years of age. d) Total gun sale control for automatic weapons or weapons that can be converted into automatic.
In my opinion, what has happened is that the freedom to buy and carry weapons considered in Article 2 of the Constitution has become part of the American culture and idiosyncrasy and now any attempt to restrict the purchase or control of weapons finds resistance on the part of people or organizations that feel that a constitutional right has been affected.
It would be good to do some teaching and explain to the Americans that constitutions and laws are not interpreted only by their literal text, but by their spirit, the epoch, and circumstances in which they were approved.
A group of parents who suffer the death of their children were received by President Trump in Washington. He proposed that teachers and professors receive training to carry arms and thus defend the students.
No Consultation
Characteristic of Trump, this proposal has not been consulted with the teachers.
Personally, I think it’s an ineffective proposal, because teachers and professors spend their time in the classroom, in administrative offices or in the library. Therefore, they cannot protect students who move and travel in areas other than those mentioned above. If a school attacker knows that there are armed teachers he will surely avoid the places where they are. You have to consider the element of surprise since it would be difficult for a teacher who is giving classes to take hold of his weapon to oppose the attacker.
When he has control of the weapon, it will be too late.
America alone
All these circumstances will emerge when the associations and unions of teachers and professors receive the Trump proposal. It should be noted that if teachers are trained and armed, The United States would be the only civilized country in the world where this happens
