|
Gun Laws
Currently, I don't feel
comfortable imagining myself as a hand gun owner. The force and consequences of what can be done with them makes me nervous.
I've never even held a hand gun, and the one time I used a rifle was at a target range. Now suppose I learned firearms; how
they work, and the proper way to use and maintain them. Could I then imagine myself as a gun owner? Probably yes; my fear
of guns is probably a fear of the unknown.
But how do I feel about my neighbors as gun owners? In my opinion they are
not people who will become suddenly violent, but could their carelessness result in an unnecessary and very costly accident.
From
the assassinations of J.F. Kennedy and M.L. King, Jr. in the 1960s, to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, right up to today, the
debate over gun laws continues. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads: "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", and it has been used
by groups on both sides of the issue to support their arguments.
Essentially, the pro-gun people believe in a person's
right to own a gun to protect and defend themselves and their family. The opposing stance suggests that gun ownership should
be more strictly regulated, which would reduce gun-related violence. There are merits to both points of view, and the difficulty
in finding a satisfactory and permanent resolution is apparent when we observe how the tides have shifted during the past
few decades. For example, former Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton held different views on the subject. While President
Reagan favored less restrictive gun laws, President Clinton was for tighter controls.
To help me understand this dilemma,
I turned to newspaper and magazine articles, to internet web sites, and to books for facts and comments on the subject. The
only prior notions I had were the well-known "Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people" and the National Rifle Association's
leader's statement that his firearm could be taken from him by prying it "from my cold, dead hands." Also, from the other
side, I was sure that there was some group which was founded as a result of the wounding or assassinating of some politician.
I later learned that the name of that group is the Brady Campaign.
Out of this familiarization process grew my concern
that gun-rights advocates might be unnecessarily zealous or extremely protective of their desire to own and use firearms.
A question developed that nagged me: Were these people, and in particular the Nat'l. Rifle Assoc., whining emotionally or
were they wisely taking preemptive steps against a real threat to disarm them?
The attempt to answer this question
might begin by noting what George Stephanopoulos said about the members of the N.R.A. He said, "Let me make one small vote
for the N.R.A. They're good citizens. They call their Congressman. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what
they want over time." One could surmise from these words, that he was talking about decent, fair people. I'll give you decent.
But in my opinion, based on my analysis of their tactics, they are overly impassioned and unnecessarily aggressive about their
cause. Consider these examples:
---There is a section of the N.R.A.-I.L.A (Institute for Legislative Action, the lobbying
arm of the N.R.A.) website that is entitled 'Who We Are, and What We Do.' On the subject of state level, pro-gun reform, the
institute's efforts include "preemption bills to prevent attacks on gun owner rights by local anti-gun politicians." I doubt
that the rights of gun owners have been 'attacked'; it is more likely that attempts have been made to curtail their rights.
I sense that there has been some exaggeration here.
---Also from the I.L.A. (found under Grassroots Division, Elements
of Successful Activism) there is another use of a word which tends to show them as victims. It reads, "Rest assured if we
become complacent and sit back on our heels,
the anti-gun, anti-freedom forces will pounce on the opportunity to further
whittle away our freedoms." Will ‘pounce’ on the opportunity...? Pounce is the kind of word used when describing what cats
do to mice. Are gun owners and their rights really being treated that way?
---In 1998, U.S. Senator Torricelli from
New Jersey believed that gun manufacturers should be held accountable when a defective gun causes an injury and when unlawful
users, such as minors, commit a crime with a gun. The legislation that he supported would have removed some of the protections
from product liability suits that the gun manufacturers were benefiting from. That sounds reasonable to me. But the National
Rifle Association's response was to cry that the proposed legislation was designed to "put as many gun manufacturers as they
can out of business, and to make the guns so costly that people can't afford them." The association is over-reacting here.
As the co-sponsor of this piece of legislation has noted, the hoped-for change is to have the gun industry take more precautions
when designing and marketing its products. Politicians are not looking to shut down the industry.
---Lastly, consider
legislation that was proposed after Sept. 11, 2001, by Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island. Senator Reed wants ALL potential
gun buyers to have their backgrounds checked for criminal violations. Licensed gun dealers must do this, but, in most states,
sellers at gun shows, or private sellers, need not. Mr. Reed's suggestion is sensible, and I don't see it as placing an undue
burden on someone who wants to buy a gun. Can the buyer-to-be claim an invasion of privacy? I don't see it as that. Would
the delay, (the time that it takes to run the check) is an inconvenience to the would-be buyer? Perhaps, but if the average
gun owner buys one, two, or three guns in a lifetime, then I don't see the waiting as something that one would suffer through.
Suppose I go to a bank once a week to make a withdrawal, and each and every time I am asked to show ID and to wait. Such frequent
checking would be considered an inconvenience. Gun buyers should not be raising a protest against background checks that
a few and far between. But the N.R.A. complains about this. Its response to the proposed legislation was to say that the sponsors
were using the events of Sept.11 and terrorist threats to selfishly further their political agenda. An N.R.A. spokesman said
that proposing the background checks was "...crass political opportunism." Sure it's political; aren't politicians supposed
to respond to social events and trends?
It seems the National Rifle Association is never happy. Their statements too
often remind me of the behavior of a whining, pouting child.
This situation is mostly a hypothetical exercise because
I have no interest in hand guns for sport shooting and I live in a neighborhood where my person and my property is safe enough.
Others, including target shooters, residents of challenging neighborhoods, and collectors are probably in favor of owning
guns.
I would love to hear what any of you reading this feels about what I have said here so please feel free to send
your remarks to our e-mail page. Thank you.
George K. ----
|
