In Response to Sandy Hook

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.

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

G-d and Government ~ a scattered, and perhaps incoherent, post

I may be wrong about this ~ for that matter, I may be wrong about almost everything, but that's a discussion for another day. I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that there's an interesting confluence of church and state in some corners of our USAmerican society. There are some folks who are quite vocal about their concern that G-d has been kicked out of our public life.

Stereotypically, these folks want to to have prayer in schools; they want talk about G-d to be pervasive in our governmental systems and structures; they want the world to acknowledge the (false) truth that the founding fathers were conservative and evangelical Christians.

And it seems to me that this group overlaps with the group who keeps resurrecting this continuing kerfluffle over whether President Obama is a Christian or a Muslim.

I don't mind passion for a cause. I don't even mind folks who are passionate about a cause with which I completely disagree. That's part of the beauty of our societal and governmental system ~ we are each entitled to our own opinion, and we have the right to voice our opinion (no matter how well- or ill-informed we are).

Part of what confuses me, though, is how some people read and interpret the constitution. A lot of people are quite familiar with our First Amendment rights. The First Amendment to the Constitution grants all people freedom of speech, freedom of the press, religious freedom, freedom of assembly, and right to petition. We are allowed to say what we want, to publish what we want, to worship (or not) as we wish, to gather together with others, and to bring grievances to the government in order to have conflicts resolved.

I'm no constitutional scholar, but the way I interpret this amendment is that everyone can say and believe what they want; further, no one is allowed to restrict the right of others to say and believe what they want.

So, it seems to me that there are quite a few Christians in this country who are concerned that their religious freedom is being taken away when they aren't allowed to lead public and all-inclusive, specifically Christian prayers in schools and other public venues. I've also heard these Christians complain that this is tantamount to religious oppression.

What seems to me to be more religiously oppressive is when someone leads a prayer on my behalf that I would never pray … and I'm Christian. I can't imagine how much more ostracized Jews and Muslims and Sikhs and everyone else must feel when Christian bullies impose their prayers on everyone.

It also seems to me that the folks who are worked up about prayer in schools are some of the same folks who are worked up because they believe President Obama is Muslim ~ and because they believe having a Muslim president is problematic. What's interesting is that they seem to be ignoring Article VI, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (not an amendment, the Constitution), which states in part that “... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office of public Trust under the United States.”

So, to those who are worked up about Mr. Obama being Muslim I say, “So What?” The constitution specifically and obviously states that it doesn't matter whether he is Christian or Muslim or Atheist or Satanist.

Those Christians who are so very vocal about valuing the religious freedom granted by the First Amendment for themselves don't seem to value religious freedom granted to others who aren't Christian.

It seems to me that we are left with two options: We can either be a pluralistic nation, embracing and embodying religious freedom for all; or, we can be a Christian nation. We have the government set up to be pluralistic. In order to be a Christian nation, we'd have to rescind significant portions of the Constitution … and I don't think there are many people who would be on board with that.

$0.02