I've heard that now is not the right
time to talk about gun laws, that we should grieve and allow the
families of those killed in Newtown to grieve.
OK.
OK.
Trouble is, once we've begun to get
over our national grief, we'll forget to have the conversation that
it's too soon to have right now. We won't remember this conversation
until the next massacre, when it will (again) be too soon to have the
conversation.
I'm beginning to believe that there can
be no better time than right now. And I'm interest in honest
conversation. I'm not interested in folks regurgitating what they've
seen on a liberal website or heard on a conservative talk show. Of
course, if that's all you're able to say, and it's what you believe,
then say it … but after you say what you have to say, then listen
honestly to the response. Don't listen for a place to make your next
point – listen for the truth that is being spoken by the other
person.
So, here's my contribution … my seven
readers should feel free to disagree, but please keep the
conversation respectful.
I'm troubled, like a lot of people are,
by how easy it is for almost anyone to obtain weapons that are
incredibly destructive. Bear in mind, I learned to shoot before I
was a teenager, and enjoy guns a great deal. I think it's ethical to
hunt for food, provided it's done responsibly and within the
parameters of the law. And I think it's fine, for those who feel the
necessity, to keep weapons around for self-defense.
But I absolutely don't believe that
it's necessary for an average and ordinary person to be able to
legally obtain high-powered assault rifles and 100-round-capacity
clips.
No, I'm not trying to take away
anyone's constitutional rights. The Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution is still important. But what does the Second Amendment
actually say?
“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.”
The Second Amendment gives us the right
to keep and bear arms. And in my reading, the right to keep and bear
arms is for self-protection, particularly from an authoritarian or
oppressive government. Which, given the geo-political situation in
the late 18th century, we can understand.
The Second Amendment seems to be
designed as a guarantee that individuals and households would be able
to acquire the means by which to protect themselves. The trouble,
though, is that keeping guns for self-defense would preclude the
necessity to keep assault weapons. See, assault weapons are not
designed for self-defense, but for attack and aggression (hence the
name 'assault' weapon).
The Second Amendment also ties the
right of gun ownership to a well-regulated militia. From my
perspective, we don't have any well-regulated militia. I know that
there are militia-type groups around which seem to either operate
off-the-grid and away from regulatory bodies, or are monitored by the
FBI as potential hate groups.
Right now there is nothing
well-regulated about any militias. I wonder if those who advocate
for fewer restrictions on gun ownership would be willing to accept
the 'well-regulated' portion of the Second Amendment.
The thing is that almost every single
gun owner I've talked with is a proponent of safe and responsible gun
usage. They're in favor of responsible citizens having access to
firearms, and those who can't be trusted to be safe with guns
(felons, the mentally unstable, young children, etc.) to not have
that access.
What I don't understand is why
gun-advocacy groups are so very worried about adding appropriate
regulation. Why not pass laws relating to guns that mirror
automobile laws? Both are useful tools that, used irresponsibly, can
be deadly weapons. What would it be like if we required gun owners
to be trained, licensed, and insured?
Let's have the conversation now, and
not wait until the next tragedy.
$0.02