spotonpolitics.com

Hey all, Rich invited me to be a contributor and so I will start by commenting on Rich’s post.

In this I agree, but it goes far beyond gun control.  Left and right both use tragedies and accidents to further their agendas.  This is opportunistic and has been going on in some way shape or form since the Agricultural Revolution thousands of years ago.  This is an issue of human nature, those we agree with can do no wrong until they go off message, and those we oppose can’t seem to get anything right, no matter how much we may agree with them.

Gun control just happens to be the issue of the day, situations such as the shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech had arguments on both sides.  Those that want stricter gun laws cited the types of guns used, the ease of access and the overly violent video games that ‘desensitize’ today’s youth  to the violence demonstrated.  Those that oppose gun laws cried about restrictions against possession of guns and lack of concealed-carry permits by staff and teachers that could have resolved the situation more quickly or may have deterred the violence in the first place.

Both sides choose extremes when the actual resolution needs to be somewhere in the middle.  Both sides are opportunistic and will weigh in on articles such as the one Rich started from, but both will continue to miss the mark.  The second Amendment states: ” 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.”  This is the most hotly contested part of the Constitution but its origin comes from Section 13 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights 1776, originally drafted by George Mason, which states: “That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”   For one reason or another the drafters of the Bill of Rights left out much of the language, and they made few statements as to why.  George Mason’s thinking is clear in that those trained with arms should be allowed to carry guns, a Militia would be a step up, but private citizens should still be allowed to protect themselves and provide for the common defense of their State.

Rich is right in that those that fail to recognize social norms should not be reduced to ‘crazy’ or ‘nut job’ because they are exercising their rights.  But the argument lacking in his statement ignores the common sense restrictions that should be put into law.  Licensing should include mandatory demonstrations of competency and training, and restrictions against assault rifles and any weapon that can be configured for fully automatic operation should be denied the public, but hunting weapons and handguns have a very valid purposes within our society.    The strongest opposition to these policies should be the strongest proponent for responsible gun ownership and practical legislation but the NRA has argued that this is a ‘slippery slope’ to hand away all gun rights and I am sick of that position.  This is the position of everyone that cannot think of a cogent argument that is based upon substance…fear of what may come.  Get off your high horse and see the world that we live in, there is no legitimate justification for assault rifles in the hands of a private citizen, nor is there any valid argument to suggest that required training for a  license shouldn’t be implemented.  We require it for anyone operating a motor vehicle which has more uses than killing something or someone. (Guns don’t really have any other purpose, we can claim they do, but at their core, their design is to do just that, kill.)

But lets be clear here, the majority of gun related violence comes from those that obtain weapons illegally, and the incidents of domestic violence that end in gunfire would still be played out with similar ends, with or without a handgun, those situations just don’t get sensationalized.  Many of us recognize the potential harm that a gun represents, we can also recognize the inherent usefulness in these tools in regards to hunting and home defense, but at some point we need to acknowledge that there are some people that should not have guns, and there are some guns that no one but those trained and working in an organized unit, be it police or military, should have.  Until we can all acknowledge that we cannot move forward and make any real strides that will guarantee the rights protected by the Constitution while providing us with common sense policies designed to protect the public from those that would do wrong.

Chris

Share on Facebook