Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Take on reasonable gun-control

We have been trying not to get into a political diatribe about gun-control in the wake of the Aurora shooting although we've yet to hear a good argument in favor of allowing ordinary people carry around the kinds of guns able to kill as many people in as short a period of time as possible.   Whenever these kinds of attacks happened (Aurora, Columbine, Gabby Gifford, VaTech, Fort Hood) a national debate begins to stir about gun-control but before a week has gone by the politicians have all gone into hiding and the concept gets punted until the next time.. the problem is that there is always a next-time..    It's time for this country to have a reasonable debate on gun-control, one without scare tactics, political clout, NRA bias or liberal wienies.     Say what you will about Bloomberg but at least he's got the guts to take the issue on he's the closest we have to a national politician willing to address it and that includes democrats and republicans. 

It's time to have a reasonable debate because I don't believe any reasonable person really believes that there should not be some kind of gun-control even the gun-toting hillbillies, hunters and the gang-bangers if they ever allowed themselves to discuss it would admit that handing guns out like candybars is probably not the smartest idea..    I always thought you have to frame the argument about controlling the guns for others..because everybody believes that they themselves are fully capable of responsible gun ownership but I bet they have much less trust in others to do the same thing.

One thing that I can't stand is that you can't even discuss this without it becoming a constitutional issue.. First of all the constitution was wrong on a lot of things including slavery and equal rights so although it's the law-of-the-land and its importance cannot be overstated, it isn't flawless.  The amendments to the constitution have always been about it being a living document with the intention that it could be changed, amended or altered.   The 2nd amendment argument is a stale one because  there was no way that John Adams, George Washington, Thomas  Jefferson etc had any intention to arm US citizens with the equivalents of a cannon to sink a battle ship.   More specifically there are a number of things in it that we don't agree with today including slavery plus it's been well established that other rights like freedom of speech have limitations like screaming fire in a crowded theater..  well it might be time to say that we should limit the ability to shoot one up also.

I have no issue with responsible gun ownership, we see nothing wrong with hunters or weekend warriors at a shooting range and we have very little issue with a guy having a gun at his house to protect himself and don't even mind somebody packing heat if they feel they are in legitimate danger.   What I have an issue with is allowing a guy to buy a magazine that holds 100 rounds that can be fired off so rapidly that it's only intention could possibly be to do as much damage as possible.   We have an issue with people being able to buy 200 pounds of ammunition and it not raising any flags, we have an issue with people being able to buy gas-canisters and grenades; we're not comfortable with people being able to walk around in full Kevlar.    Mainly we have an issue that allows somebody to legally purchase guns with very limited background check and psychological checks..   It typically takes a kid 3 months before they get a driver's license in the south the same kid can buy an Uzi within 2 days at a real gun-shop and within 10 minutes at a gun-show and unlimited ammo like he's buying an RC car on Amazon.

 I'd like to have one legitimate argument as to why anybody should be able to have an Uzi because I can't seem to find a good argument allowing ordinary citizens getting their hands on anti aircraft missiles, a bunch of AsianOrange or an atomic bomb basically because we don't see any value in that.  Weapons of mass destruction (which I'd classify a semi-automatic gun capable of shooting 100 rounds in a minutes as) have no place in the hands of ordinary citizens and it's time to address it

No comments: