Another mass shooting, but the same impasse on guns

The “unalienable rights” that fomented a revolution and birthed our great nation were threefold: “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

On its face, it seems that these three work reflexively, in concert with one another. But it is more complex than that. Each is inherently exclusive. If the scale tips too far in the direction of life and thereby its protection, it may be at the expense of some liberties. Conversely, if we become so fixated on a certain expectation of liberty, we put American lives at risk, and in so doing put the pursuit of happiness at risk.

{mosads}The genius of our democracy is that it puts the protection of that balance between all three rights in the hands of politicians whom we elect. When American lives are being lost, for example, in staggering and growing numbers of mass shootings, we expect our politicians to react. We expect them, in this case, to examine whether or not the protection of specific liberties is overwhelming the protection of life. Often this examination, and resultant action, requires courage and vision; it requires leadership.

Claiming a solution is “too hard” or “can’t be reached” is simply unacceptable. Our country achieves great things “not because they are easy, but because they are hard,” said President John Kennedy in 1962, “because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”

The innate byproduct of a country that grew from a revolutionary moment is that it is always vulnerable to a fervent minority that feels its revolutionary ideals are compromised. In the case of our seemingly calcified impasse on guns in this country, each side has taken up their rote talking points and either claims that the government is “conspiring to take our guns” or that those “right-wing zealots live under a fear of Armageddon.” Much of the rhetoric from both sides is inflammatory.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and its 5 million dues-paying members (there’s reason to doubt this number, but let’s concede the 5 million) have developed an influence in Washington that is astounding. But it was not always like this. We now associate the NRA with its fundamentalist approach to gun rights and the Second Amendment, but for nearly a century after it was founded in 1871, the NRA was one of America’s foremost gun control organizations. Its original mission was to teach gun safety and marksmanship.

Today, however, the incredibly well-funded and well-organized NRA has transformed its platform so severely that the mere suggestion of minor gun legislation — background checks, no-fly list restrictions or magazine limitations — is met with a fanatical defense. In fact, the NRA has become so impervious to change that it’s hard to imagine its current platform aligns with the beliefs of the majority of its members.

We have a no-fly list in this country that prevents people who are, for example, suspected of terrorist activity or are a suspect in a criminal case from getting on planes, but those same people whom we restrict from flying can go into a store and buy a gun. Why would the NRA oppose even a dialogue on trying to reconcile this counterintuitive legislation?

Why would the NRA be opposed to restricting the manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds? Is it really a violation of liberty to implement this kind of legislation, especially if such a restriction could preserve the life and pursuit of happiness of even one American during the next mass shooting?

And yet, therein lies our current imbalance. On the one hand, the NRA is an inherently American organization — challenging the government in that reverberant, revolutionary tone that is embedded in our national DNA. On the other hand, that tone has corrupted the trust we must have in our elected officials to not only preserve our liberties, but to protect our lives.

Americans are dying. For all the flag-waving patriotism the NRA boasts, you would think that this sight of Americans dying in mass shootings would alter its collective recalcitrance toward any gun legislation. It is even more confounding, however, that our politicians can’t find common ground in the form of two fundamental goals: 1) Make these mass shootings happen with less frequency; and 2) When they do happen, make it so they result in fewer deaths.

Reasonable minds understand that we will never be able to eliminate gun violence completely, and that the right to bear arms is certainly an important part of this country’s history and a liberty that should be protected. But how many lives are we willing to sacrifice for that liberty before we stand together and take action?

Spatola is a West Point graduate and former captain in the U.S. Army. He currently serves as a college basketball analyst for ESPN and is a host on SiriusXM radio.