Pro Common Sense

In the interests of full disclosure, I am not anti-gun. I spent almost 9 years in the Air Force and qualified on two handguns and an M-16. When I was growing up, I hunted with my grandfather, and even owned my own double barrel, 20 gauge shotgun. I was also responsible, as a kid, for dramatically increasing the copper content of the soil around our house, as well as a few trees (sorry again Mom!), due to heavy BB gun use.  I've been a military history buff since I was a little kid and I love me some Quentin Tarantino. So I'm hardly a frothing crusader for repealing gun rights. But having said all that, I fully support some common sense gun regulation.

No, I'm not looking to take everyone's guns away. In fact, almost no one is, so I wish the NRA and others on the 'no compromise' side of this argument would stop whining like 2 year olds whose ice cream just hit the floor. Look, guns exist for only one reason: to kill. You can talk up target shooting and skeet shooting, etc. But the truth is that firearms were not invented and perfected to shoot clay pidgeons. They were invented to kill human beings. And over time, they have become more and more efficient at ending lives. I'm not saying that a gun is evil, but let's not pretend they are holy relics or talismans of liberty either. Guns are as likely to support tyranny as they are to protect freedom. Guns are not the cornerstone of Democracy. The cornerstones of Democracy are governmental checks & balances, freedom of expression and our judicial system, not who has the most, or biggest guns.

It's important to remember that there are two different spheres of life where guns exist; military and civilian. The military has much different needs than does a convenience store owner down the street. For the military, it's all about killing people in the quickest, most efficient manner possible for a particular situation. Whether that's a sniper rifle to kill a single individual from a mile away or a special forces team clearing a building with FN P90 assault rifles. Fast, reliable and deadly are the key features. And these weapons are put into the hands of highly trained soldiers. Individuals who have been drilled over and over on how to operate rationally in the chaotic environment of flying bullets. These are specialized weapons in the hands of those who have been trained to be specialists in the dark art of killing other human beings.

Then we have the civilian world, where the needs are much different. Here it's about sport or personal defense. There is no need for 30+ round magazines or a high rate of fire. Neither will help you hit a target on a range or take down a game animal and neither is needed for self defense. If one standard pistol magazine isn't enough to defend yourself, you're either in the middle of a gang shootout or you're running with Officer John McLane. In either case, your problems are unlikely to be solved with a few more rounds. And for the survivalists out there, I'm afraid a larger capacity magazine is not going to help you if the government really does come for you. Your AR-15 isn't going to save you from a highly trained tactical strike team or a platoon of trained infantry.

Military grade weapons have no place in civilian society. That's why your neighbor can't mount a quad .50 on his garage and you can't pick up Stinger missiles at Walmart! Neither of you has any legitimate need for that kind of firepower. Home defense? Try a shotgun. Talk about fear factor! I'd be more scared staring down the muzzle of a 12 gauge than an AR-15 any day! The AR-15 might miss, at least with the first few rounds, but the shotgun probably won't.

The other thing that so many people seem to not understand is that owning a gun does not imbue you with magical powers. You hear it after every mass shooting. The chorus of, "if only they had all been armed this would never have happened!" Look, Rambo, owning a gun doesn't make you Jason Bourne. Shooting targets on a range or hunting deer does not remotely qualify you to be calm and rational in the middle of a firefight.  Sure, if some of the teachers at Sandy Hook had been armed, the result might have been different. Perhaps they would have stopped the gunman, but that difference could also have been that several more bystanders may have been wounded or killed as multiple 'good guys' started spraying shots down range without carefully clearing their target.

It doesn't help that the Second Amendment is so non-specific. The whole thing is one sentence with one or two commas, depending on where you source the text. You would think that might make it straight forward, but it's not. Read it for yourself:

"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."

It seems like the only part most people care about is the last section, but the whole first part seems to clearly be a qualifier, implying that it specifically pertains to militias. There are some who interpret the Second Amendment as some paranoid safety valve, put in by the founding fathers as a defense against an overreaching government. That seems like a strange thing to shoehorn into the bill of rights. Not to mention, it's like a bride calling from her wedding reception to put a divorce lawyer on retainer. It also doesn't seem to fit when you read the whole amendment. I can't get past the militia bit, personally. When I read it, what I see is a warning not to ban guns because to do so would functionally disarm the state militias, who were pretty much the entire US army of the time. But we no longer base our security on civilian militias whose equipment is provided by the individuals themselves. We now have a professional military and the militias have been superseded by the National Guard, who have their weapons provided for them by the individual states. I think the Second Amendment is actually a bit anachronistic. Remember this comes from a time when the founders never imagined that the United States would have a standing, professional military numbering more than a million men and women.

This whole issue is way too complicated to fix by just arming everyone. Just as we will never stop every mass shooting by tightening gun laws. However, there are obvious steps that can be taken to make it a little harder for some individuals to arm themselves. Making background checks universal, whether you're shopping a brick and mortar store or just browsing at a local gun show, will make it harder for those with ill intent to pick up a weapon while adding only a minor inconvenience for everyone else. It's like security at the airport. Sure it's annoying, but everyone has to deal with it and it does provide a basic barrier to those trying to do harm. Is it fool proof? Of course not. Having laws and punishments setup for murderers doesn't stop 100% of killings, but that's no reason not to have them in place. Will banning some assault rifles stop the next Sandy Hook? Probably not, but it may very well save lives among the thousands of other shootings. And it will do so without causing the vast majority of gun owners the tiniest inconvenience. All I ask is for gun rights activists to stop and take a slow, deep breath. Holster their bravado. Then listen with an open mind and think rationally about what is actually being proposed and consider the real world impact.

Guns, Guns, Guns

As I type this, we are a day from April 19th. This date is significant in several ways. First, it was the date of the first two clashes at Lexington and Concord that lit off the American Revolution.  It's also the anniversary of the fiery conclusion to the 1993 Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, TX. And in 1995 it marked the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh. So why is the date significant this year? Two separate, but equally disturbing Pro-Gun/2nd Amendment rallies are set for the 19th. First up,  the 'Second Amendment March' will be at the Washington Monument on the National Mall. This will be an unarmed gathering, due to D.C. law. The second, calling itself the 'Restore the Constitution' rally will be set at Fort Hunt National Park, just across the Potomac from the capital. This one is planned to be very much an armed demonstration, as VA law allows the open carrying of firearms.

I'm very much aware that firearms are something Americans feel a strong attachment to. That's fine and that's legal. I have no overwhelming desire to outlaw them, but that doesn't mean I'm happy with hundreds of armed citizens protesting at the doorstep of the Capital. If there is one type of gathering I'd rather not see armed it's a protest aimed at the government. It's not a good precedent to set. I don't even understand what they are protesting. I don't recall any recent legislation that assaulted gun ownership. In fact, there have been some dubious ones that are quite Pro gun, such as allowing train passengers to check luggage containing firearms, allowing guns to be carried in National Parks and the most bizarre of all carrying them in bars. There's nothing that makes me feel safer than a drunk with a Beretta! But setting aside the issue of shoot-outs over dart game disputes, what, exactly are they protesting?

I've lost a lot of my patience with this group of people. While I recognize their right to own firearms, the whole concept seems to have an almost religious quality about it that scares the hell out of me. It's not that some citizens want to own guns. It's the way many are struck with awe and reverence when the subject of the Second Amendment arises. Look, it's a 9mm semi-automatic pistol . . . not the True Cross! It doesn't take much to get the NRA crowd howling at the moon.  All you have to do is merely suggest that maybe, perhaps it should be more complicated to buy a gun than fill a prescription and devout gun owners will go up in flames. Do they really want to go back to some idealized wild west situation where everyone walks around with a Desert Eagle on their hip or an AR-15 slung over their shoulder? Will that make them feel safer, and if so, what are they so afraid of?

Based on some of the rhetoric coming out of the organizers and speakers at these two marches, it's fear of the Government. Daniel Almond, who organized the armed rally on the VA side of the Potomac, is determined to protect the Second Amendment, yet has no problem ignoring inconvenient bits of the Constitution like national elections. Almond explains, "I'm not really here to try and court majority opinion and win 51% support for my cause...even if that were necessary." In a truly surreal twist of logic he sees the Second Amendment as hedge against the "tyranny of the majority." I guess a government duly elected by the majority is 'tyranny'.  At least when you're the one in the minority. Kind of like being a fair weather patriot, isn't it? Democracy is great . . . unless your candidate loses. It's not even like the nation has been turned upside down either. Income taxes are at their lowest point in over a decade. The President just hosted the largest gathering of world leaders by a US President since FDR to discuss and take steps towards securing nuclear material. And legislation is going into effect that will stop health insurance companies from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions thus opening the door for millions to finally be able to obtain insurance coverage. Contrary to what the NRA, self serving politicians, and the Mayan calendar might tell you, the world is not coming to an end.

The problem is not with most gun owners, but with this fringy element that sees their guns as a source of power and stability when the rest of the world is changing way too fast. This kind of thinking slots cleanly into the militia mentality, hence the re-emergence of militias after more than a decade of decline. These groups wrap themselves in the flag and claim to be arming to take back America. But who are they taking it back from? Are they talking about the 53% of Americans who voted for Obama? Am I the only person who wonders where these rallies were when the Bush Administration was tapping phones without warrants and expanding the power of the Executive branch? They seem to have a very flexible idea of what is intrusive. Warrant-less wiretaps are just to keep us safe, but changes to health insurance regulations are a 'Socialist Agenda' requiring armed insurrection? It's time to just call it like it is, these groups are really no different than one of these religious extremist groups. They are convinced that they are the only ones who see the truth about some nebulous evil in the world and they are willing to arm themselves and possibly even kill to get their way. It's domestic terrorism, though we prefer not to call it that. It's much more acceptable to use the term 'terrorist' to refer to someone from outside. Someone, not 'us'. But it was certainly pure and simple terrorism on April 19th, 1995 when 168 civilian men, women and children were murdered because Tim McVeigh thought the Federal Government was out of control. Seems like a very bad day to choose for an anti-government/Pro-gun march.