Twenty Christmas trees and what's next for US gun laws

 
A teenager decorates Christmas trees set up at a makeshift shrine to the victims of a elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, 16 December 2012

Any memorial to 20 murdered children is going to be unbearably sad.

But I was not prepared for the makeshift shrine outside the Sandy Hook school. There are candles and flowers, bouquets of flowers, Christmas daisies and poinsettias, scores of teddy bears with sodden fur, and Christmas trees hung with decorations.

One tree for every murdered child.

A young man with guns and murder in his heart has subverted the meaning of the symbols of Christmas.

All the familiar ornaments of the season of joy, that reminds so many of us of happy times with our family, have been pressed into service as memorials of loss.

It is horrific reminder that for many families here, this Christmas will be unbearable, and every Christmas as long as they live will be have a hollowness at its centre.

In this sweet and likeable ordinary town, it is simply heartbreaking.

But the heart break has prompted soul-searching, as many ask how this country is so often over taken by home-grown horror.

If the children of the town had been massacred by a foreigner with a political agenda, one can only imagine the swiftness of action and retribution.

While certainty and speed are absent from this debate, there is some sort of momentum.

President Obama has held a meeting in the White House about what response there might be with his chief law official.

Two Democratic senators, previously fierce supporters of the gun lobby, appear to be changing their minds.

Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who once featured in a political advert shooting a rifle, said "proud gun owners are proud parents too" and said Congress needed to "move beyond rhetoric".

Virginia's Mark Warner said his three daughters asked him what he was going to do to change the law, adding the status quo was not acceptable.

This isn't perhaps very much. Even if Congress could be persuaded to change, the Supreme Court has said otherwise in the past four years.

They have made it clear the second amendment isn't, in their minds, about forming militias but clearly gives modern Americans the right to bear arms for their personal use.

They have struck down a ban on handguns in Washington DC, and then extended their reasoning to a ban in Chicago.

But something has now changed.

Obama did not touch gun control in his first term. Few ambitious politicians did. They thought it too toxic to handle, the public disinterested or hostile to restrictions.

The 20 trees, the plethora of soft toys and all the other reminders of a broken Christmas seem to tell some that that is no longer the case and that it may be more dangerous leaving the subject alone.

 
Mark Mardell Article written by Mark Mardell Mark Mardell North America editor

Is Obama right over Iraq?

The Obama doctrine says the US will only go to war if its vital interests or those of its allies are threatened, so what does that mean for Iraq?

Read full article

More on This Story

US gun debate

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 408.

    400.Bengalman

    "Good thing I own several firearms "

    ===

    Those days would perhaps appear to be coming to an end at long last :D

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 407.

    Bengalman (406),

    “Civilian possession of automatic weapons is not prohibited …”
    I did qualify it with ‘essentially’, but while there are exceptions, yes, they are prohibited by the tight regulations of the BATF.

    “… At one time, I knew a "nut" who had a LAWS rocket …”
    Now THAT was illegal.

    “… If you don't like the law, CHANGE IT.”
    That IS the democratic process.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 406.

    Civilian possession of automatic weapons is not prohibited. I know people who own them and own them legally. At one time, I knew a "nut" who had a LAWS rocket. As you can see, there are people who want to pretend the 2nd Amendment is not relevant but it is. Tyranny of black robed judges will not be tolerated by free people. If you don't like the law, CHANGE IT.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 405.

    Bengalman (404),

    "... By definition it runs afoul of the 2nd Amendment ..."

    The meaning of the words depends upon their interpretation. Civilian possession of automatic weapons is essentially prohibited, along with most other military small arms. So the question becomes one of balancing the demands between the desires by some for additional gun control against the 2nd Amendment wording.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 404.

    "additional gun control need not run afoul of the 2nd Amendment."

    By definition it runs afoul of the 2nd Amendment. "...the right of the people to bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I'm not a lawyer, would never waste mhy God-given talents to be one, but that is very clear to me.

 

Comments 5 of 408

 

Features & Analysis

Elsewhere on the BBC

  • SailingGame on

    BBC Capital discovers why certain sports seem to have a special appeal for those with deep pockets

Programmes

  • European Union's anti-terrorism chief Gilles de KerchoveHARDtalk Watch

    Anti-terrorism chief Gilles de Kerchove on the threat from returning Islamic State fighters

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.