ReportFromTheFront's Blog

Once again, the issue of gun control has reared its ugly head as a result of the recent Court ruling striking down the District’s strict gun control statutes, some of the most restrictive in the country. The resulting – and not unexpected – firestorm following the ruling has once again shaken the gun ownership tree, allowing nuts on both sides of the issue to fall noisily to the ground.  

Now when I was a boy, my Dad owned two rifles and a pistol, all of which he taught me to use. He wasn’t a member of the NRA nor was he the recipient of any formal firearms training save what he got in boot camp prior to being deployed during the Korean conflict. Nevertheless, he was able to teach me to shoot and to shoot well; so much so that I grew to like target & BLEEP shooting and actually got to be pretty good at it. To this day, when I go to Ocean City, the first amusements I go to lose my money at are the ones involving shooting of some kind. I still enjoy it. 

 

Over the past several decades however, I’ve become increasingly disturbed at the dramatic rise in violent crimes, especially those involving the use of guns. Shootings at Post Offices across the country, schools (Columbine, for example), shopping malls and in traffic disputes are - despite our growing dismay and best efforts to the contrary – getting to be more commonplace than any one of us wants to admit or should be comfortable with. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that firearms are just all too easily available to anyone who wants them. The checks and balances put into place in order to keep guns out of the hands from people who shouldn’t have access to them are not effective – even if strictly administered – and just not working. 

 

 As a result, and after many years of thought on the subject, I’ve decided that the right thing to do with regard to this issue is to stand with the gun control advocates. More than that, I am in favor of a Constitutional Amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment and a total national ban on gun ownership with one possible exception, which I’ll discuss in a moment. 

 

Now at this very moment, a whole bunch of people have stopped reading this and are busily wrapping themselves up in the American flag and waiving about copies of the Constitution with the 2nd Amendment conspicuously highlighted, all while calling me un-American, unpatriotic, a traitor to the cause and worse. Look, guys – Just sit down & relax. Let me explain: 

 

From what I have seen over the years, all of the arguments put forth by the NRA in favor of gun ownership have been reasonably, logically and successfully addressed by those on the other side of the argument. When all else has failed (as it almost always does) the NRAers always fall back on the one singular justification that – for the moment, at least – can’t be ignored or argued with; The 2nd Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms. What they seem to forget (or conveniently ignore) are the times in which the Constitution itself was written. 

 

In those years, most of the national governments of Europe were oppressive tyrannies which catered almost exclusively to the desires of the wealthy class (the few) and ignored the basic needs of the general populace (the many). There were no – repeat, no – freedoms of any kind. You did what you were told, lived how you were ‘graciously’  allowed to live by people who knew nothing of your existence and didn’t care to. In brief, these were the conditions that eventually led up to the American Revolution in the mid 1770’s and the French Revolution just 13 years later. 

 

The U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, just 11 years after the Americans had won their freedom from England. The memories of the revolution itself and the reasons behind  it were still fresh in the minds of the founding fathers and those who fought alongside them. The Constitution was their way to try and cement their hard won independence and embark on what the French writer Voltaire was to characterize as ‘The Grand Experiment”.  The insertion of the 2nd Amendment into the Constitution was their sole solution (or so they thought at the time) to guarantee that the populace would have some recourse if the ‘experiment’ failed and America regressed backwards into a dictatorship. 

 

In addition, it must be pointed out that in 1787, a gun was as necessary a part of any household as is a telephone today. After the war, there was no paid professional army or militia per se. The people themselves were the army and militia if needed. There was no such thing as a police force. Also, if you wanted dinner, you went out & shot it. You didn’t call Dominos. Lastly, let’s not forget the native Americans who weren’t real thrilled with the Europeans who were slowly but surely taking away their ancestral lands & territories and, ultimately, their very way of life. 

 

        Today, we have a paid, professional army; States have militias and every jurisdiction has a police force, all of which serve to protect us and provide civil order. If we’re hungry, we have tons of options Colonial America never even dreamed of. With the exception of the extremist nut cases, the realistic chances of America regressing into a dictatorship of any kind are pretty remote. Simply put, we as a society simply wouldn’t stand for such a thing. Lastly, for the crowd who steadfastly maintains the need for firearms ownership as protection against armed criminals, the key, of course, is to simply make them unavailable to all instead of the patchwork of availability which varies from state to state thereby eliminating the ‘If I can’t buy a gun here, I’ll buy it there’ opportunism. The “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people” argument is lame. The plain fact of the matter is that anything you can think of can be misused and turned into a weapon. The other fact of the matter is that guns of any kind have only one purpose: to be used to maim or kill something. 

 

So my question to the gun owning populous is this: If you don’t need a gun as protection against the government, to participate as a member of the army or state militias, if you don’t have to hunt in order to eat or for protection, Why do you need one? 

 

The answer is that you don’t. 

 

You may want a gun, but you don’t actually need a gun. 

 

The only reasonable exception I would endorse would be ownership by true firearms collectors who would be strictly licensed and regulated. Transfer of ownership would have to be registered  - much like the sale of a car - so that any gun bought or sold could be tracked. 

 

That’s it. That’s my position. I’m sure it’s not gonna be the popular one, but that’s how I feel and why.  

 

I invite anyone who would like to share their feelings - pro and con - to post a comment to the blog or write to me directly at ReportFromTheFront@hotmail.com. I plan to revisit this topic in a few weeks and will be happy to include your comments.