IN THE aftermath of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary
School, in Newtown, Connecticut, we seem to have a new opportunity
in the United States to restrict the availability of guns. The
state of New York, prodded by its Governor, Andrew Cuomo, has taken
a lead in passing stricter legislation, but broader progress
depends on the President, and Congress. The President is showing
new determination in the matter; Congressional agreement is still
uncertain.
People in other countries are justifiably perplexed at how
difficult it is for the US to curb so clear a public danger. Some
of the reasons are historical; others are political. The nation
originated, after all, in a revolution, expanded along a chaotic
frontier, and remained strongly rural during its formative period.
Guns are a part of our culture. My rural relatives have always had
guns - and still have. They are not dogmatic on the subject; they
simply need them to protect their farm animals from predators such
as marauding coyotes.
The second amendment, added to the Constitution in 1789,
specified that "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."
With its plethora of commas, the text is not entirely clear. But
its original context was a new nation with little in the way of a
standing army or organised police force. The need for some sort of
organised group to respond in public emergencies was met by
militias, composed of men who provided their own weapons. The
National Guard is a modern equivalent, but no one expects its
members to supply their own arms. The problem is, thus, how to
interpret a provision framed in terms of the 18th century in a
modern context.
The political situation today makes this even more difficult.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) interprets the amendment
expansively. Not everyone who owns a gun would agree. But the NRA
is heavily funded by gun manufacturers, and it serves their
interests at least as much as those of gun-owners. It has a
significant public presence, and spends heavily to influence
elections and to lobby Congress.
Another political factor inhibiting effective gun control is the
Christian Right - or, at least, its Evangelical component. This
group is particularly strong in the South and Midwest, where it has
been the close ally of the Republican Party since the time of
Ronald Reagan. Indeed, its influence is the main reason why
opposition to legal abortion and to marriage for gay and lesbian
people has become an important element in the platform of a party
that a few decades ago was more interested in fiscal
conservatism.
Although it seems odd that Christians should actively favour
gun-ownership, the Christian Right represents not only a
theological position, but a particular, alienated segment of the
population. Guns, for these people - who are mostly white, although
Evangelicals of colour share some of their other concerns - are as
much a part of their social consensus as opposition to abortion,
gay marriage, immigration, and the increasing separation of
religion from public life.
On the other side of the conflict stand the majority of
Democrats, and, increasingly, Jewish, Roman Catholic, and
mainstream Protestant leaders. There is more hope of progress than
I can remember at any point in my lifetime. Nevertheless, past
attempts to restrict ownership of guns - even of assault weapons -
have not met with great success. The President, and other advocates
of gun control, if they are to succeed, will have to seize the
moment before the memory of Newtown fades.
The Revd Dr Bill Countryman is Professor Emeritus of New
Testament at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley,
California.