I feel like I should say something about the murder of 20 first-graders, but words seem inadequate and others more skilled than I have already tried.  I’ll stick to two themes related to the event:

First, how is it that we can establish appropriate restrictions on other constitutional freedoms but that the Second Amendment is somehow off limits?  I am not a huge fan of government intrusion in people’s lives, but we all are part of a society where we must relinquish some degree of freedom in an attempt to live peaceably together.  Whether or not it would prevent the sort of violence we have once again witnessed, it seems reasonable to limit public access to individual weapons of mass destruction.  Such a modest limit does not seem to overly infringe on a Second Amendment right that already has been interpretationally stretched well beyond a level that constitutional originalists may deem appropriate for any other individual right.

As a reminder, here is what the Second Amendment says:

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.

While there is some nuance here in terms of how one might interpret this right, I do not think it is a stretch to say that a ban on assault rifles is an appropriate potential infringement.  It is no accident that that the NRA has focused its efforts legislatively and has not sought to judicially enforce its view of this provision.

Second, in contrast with our legislators’  lack of political courage to take on the NRA, we saw extraordinary examples of individual heroism displayed in that school on Friday – teachers sacrificing themselves to protect their students; administrators running into harm’s way to try to prevent the carnage.  May we all be so worthy if, god-forbid, the opportunity was ever to arise.