Letter to the Editor: Maybe we should look to Switzerland for an effective way to legislate gun control

Watching highlights of Congressional hearings this week, it looks like we have our scapegoat for the violence related to the recent Donald Trump rally — Kimberly Cheatle, head of the Secret Service.

Sadly in modern history, this event joins the attempt to the life of President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in the 1960s.

Is it only me to think that having the best line of sight for the real-time protection of Donald Trump by the Secret Service would have been directly behind him if it had not been filled with a crowd of his supporters, which is always the case at his rallies? While Ms. Cheatle is the head of this law enforcement organization, that group operates on a complex protocol with 101 processes in motion at any given time that needs to adapt to each venue.

Now we have a 20-year-old boy who legally can’t buy a six-pack of beer but can possess and buy ammunition for a military type of assault rifle.  A boy who apparently had no political or ideological agenda but only wanted to go from being a nobody to being somebody in his mixed-up head.

As the Illinois law on what is referred to as an assault weapons ban proceeds through the state and federal court systems, I feel compelled to state my view on what perhaps some people in the community may at least understand, if not agree with. 

During the past summer, I noticed an RV parked somewhere with the second clause of a two-clause paragraph of our 2^nd Amendment — “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I value my 73 years and the opportunity to have had my share of personal experiences in life with other people. I remember in 1963 when my 7^th-grade teacher, Sister Luella, took me aside about my writing composition and asked me what I thought a paragraph was. I guess after my glazed look, she went on to say a paragraph is one central idea with one aim or purpose.

The complete 2^nd amendment paragraph reads:

“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.”

What does this complete paragraph in terms of one central idea with one central aim and purpose actually mean?

I’m not sure who exactly developed this paragraph, but let’s assume it was a joint effort by guys with the names of Hamilton, Franklin and Jefferson. While Hamilton had issues with the king of England, he still chose to use the King’s English when he wrote things down, as did the other two men. 

I have wondered for some time what could have been in these three gentlemen’s heads when they sat down to address the issue of self-defense and the rights of their nation, people and individuals.

While Ben Franklin was an inventor and innovator in his time, I don’t see even him envisioning the type of technology we now have in our hands today related to the 2^nd Amendment. Let’s try to put ourselves in their world as it was, and they are having their discussion addressing this issue. 

Let’s say that their second-to-last draft of the 2^nd Amendment was word for word as it is today except for one word — “individual” vs. “people.” Jefferson says to the others, “You know Richard who lives down the road from me has never done anything bad, but I still can’t trust his judgment and temperament.” 

Franklin says, “I know people like that, too. How can we be inclusive of everyone but still set some control on individuals?”  

Hamilton says, “Easy. I’ll just cross out the “I” word for the “P” word.  We already use the term “people” in the 1^st Amendment, as it makes no sense to say, “of the right of the individual peacefully to assemble.”

Back to my personal experiences.

I had a recent discussion with a couple I know about their two grandsons — a 15-year-old and an 11-year-old.  The younger boy has a form of autism that makes him incapable of playing a card or board game with others without severely losing his temper.

His older brother allows the boy to hit on him as hitting him back only makes it worse.   The young boy has the aptitude to learn three other languages, so hopefully with good help to better control his shortcomings, he can become a good citizen. Should some things be kept out of his reach as he moves into adulthood?

Now let’s move to Switzerland, which is reported to have the third-highest possession of guns in the world. Mary Miller, in her last campaign for the 17^th District of Congress, used this country as an example of where a large number of guns are with a low amount of crime.  

What she failed to mention, and perhaps did not even know, was that while gun possession by the Swiss is third in the world, gun ownership by the Swiss is down in the 50s, similar to other European countries. The reason for this is simple.

When young men or women come of age, they are called to serve in the active Swiss military for a few months, if they choose to.  In doing so, they learn to ski or ski better and become proficient in using military weapons.  After serving their initial training and active duty, they go into the reserves and are issued the same type of weapon with a safe to keep it in as long as they remain in the active reserves and later if they choose to.  They can go to a shooting range almost any time they want to practice their marksmanship, and their government provides the ammunition at these facilities. 

A combination of this practice, what I consider to be the best application of our 2^nd Amendment rights by another country, and their geography were significant factors in keeping aggressors out of their country twice in the first half of the 20^th century. That continues today.

Before I completed my four years of college in 1972, I had won the first military draft lottery with the number 50 and got drafted into the Army after college. I spent my first eight weeks at Fort Polk, La., carrying and caring for an M16A1 rifle, which today is considered the premier assault rifle and even a machine gun.

While I am not one of the folks owning or wanting to own such a weapon today, I showed I could use one having qualified in my military service in doing so.

I still consider our U.S. military service and a person who honorably completes that service good examples and proof of competency of their citizenship.   Yes, in a recent mass shooting in the state of Maine, the shooter was a military veteran.  But if he still had his military-issued weapon issued to him like the Swiss do, he would not have had the ammunition in his possession. 

Going forward, I hope our legal representatives in our court system can think this issue through to correct conclusions.  I don’t know if judges get smarter as they go up the ladders of our judicial system to the point that we currently have the nine smartest judges in our country now serving in the U.S. Supreme Court or not.  

I do know the top nine in the Supreme Court bounce hypothetical questions off one another. Maybe they think like Jefferson, Franklin and Hamilton may have been thinking when our Constitution was developed.

What I consider to be an example of things going bad in our court system was the case where a father who was trying to bury his son who was killed in Iraq serving our country had the services interrupted and disrupted by a church group that was chanting and carrying signage for their cause that had no relevance to what was taking place at that cemetery at the time.

The church group claimed their 1^st Amendment “freedom of speech” right, and it went to the Supreme Court where they “won” their case in an 8-1 decision — Snyder vs. Phelps. Justice Samuel Alito was the one judge who ruled in favor of the father, writing the dissenting opinion that seemed to me to ask the question; is the Constitution, despite itself, still the Constitution?

This church group is still active today, but one thing I noticed when they came to Quincy a couple of years ago was that, except for some reports that they were coming, there was no media coverage of what they did here in Quincy. Maybe they did indeed lose in their objective of getting publicity by hiding behind our Constitution despite their “win” in the Supreme Court decision.

In the case of our 1^st and 2^nd Amendment judgments in our courts, there are going to be cases where people’s rights are violated — or they think they are violated.  In the case of a parent losing a child in a mass shooting or not burying a solder son with dignity, it is pretty clear to me that the parent and child’s rights get violated.  It is less clear when a private citizen must register or be prevented from owning a military type of weapon as part of their ownership rights. 

I ask that local elected officials — judges, county sheriffs, representatives of our Illinois general assembly, city or county government bodies — and the people of the community look at their own experiences and values in life regarding the issue of gun control. 

Don’t just listen to “the don’t tread on me” opinions on this issue or what you hear or watch on radio or TV — or yes, even the written word. Don’t be afraid of moving off the right and to the middle for fear of losing your election in a primary race.

I recall from my U.S. History class the statement, “Taxation without representation is tyranny,” which is a long way from the yellow flag with a poisonous snake that I have almost no recollection of in my younger years. I have empathy for the educators who got sideways with other people’s thinking when they tried to exclude a symbol that sends the message that someone or something is going to get killed or seriously injured if we can’t work out a solution.

Yes, going to the way it is done by the Swiss, you would get 101 reasons why it would/could/should not work in this country by many very opinionated people.  However, I found in my past personal experiences in business that it was good to take note of how other companies go about dealing with similar issues and feed some facts to the people at hand.   This came to use the term “best practices.”

The only “well-regulated militia” in our country does and should remain under our authorized government. People really wanting and feeling the need to possess military-type weapons should enlist in the Illinois National Guard, with the people of Illinois enacting legislation that would make our guard the first of the 54 guards in this nation to establish the same criteria as the Swiss.

After retiring from the guard, members in good standing could continue to pay a modest fee to retain their weapon and safely store it — as long as they are competent in utilizing it.

Don Carpenter
Quincy, Illinois