A year after Newtown

I don’t like guns. I know how to use one, in fact, I’m a really good shot; maybe one day that will be a valuable part of my skill set, but right now, it isn’t. A large part of why I don’t like guns is that, as a small child, I had a revolver pointed at me by a rookie cop, hands shaking, the barrel no more than 36 inches from my sleep-encrusted eyes. Since then, I haven’t had much use for guns or the police. It would be nice if I could avoid both for the rest of my days.

But that is my personal opinion, and despite the fact that I have an aversion to them personally, I don’t have a problem with responsible people, responsibly owning guns. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court and the NRA have made the notion of “responsible” completely moot. Because there is no clear definition of “responsible”, the United States doesn’t have any “responsible” gun owners.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution says:

“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.”

The first major misconception about the Second Amendment is that the people have the right to bear arms to resist the tyranny of the government. The Constitution itself precludes tyranny; it’s entire design was to ensure that tyranny could never take hold in the new form of government - a government for the People, of the People, and by the People.

I know this may be the hardest part for some to recognize. Some people just need to cling to their most firmly held beliefs, and claim that because the Founding Fathers fought tyranny, that they presupposed that their experiment in government would fail, turning them into tyrants, and that the people would have reason and need for a means to defend themselves. Wrong.

They expected to create a model of government to be imitated for generations; and they did. They created a nation were tyranny could not exist. Checks and balances, due process, habeas corpus, etcetera, etcetera, and so forth and so on. Tyranny cannot exist in the U.S., at least not within the government; now the private sector though - that’s another matter…

Anybody who tells you otherwise, probably shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a gun. There are people who seriously believe that they live under constant threat of violence. Even in the worst places in this country, and it’s meanest streets, the facts say that this just isn’t so. There are people who see everyone as a potential threat, and a bogeyman in every shadow. And these are the “responsible” gun owners who are “exercising their Constitutional rights”? Like the Branch Davidians? Or the Montana Militias? Or George Zimmerman? Or the whole State of Idaho for that matter…?

There is no Supreme Leader in our country, therefore, no candidate for tyrant. Sorry, but nobody in our system is that powerful, and never will be. The military is not allowed to operate combat missions within the nation’s borders except during wartime or national emergency; this is federal law, and has been enforced on more than one occasion. There goes the idea of soldiers kicking in your door.

The CIA is prohibited by law to conduct operations within U.S. borders (the NSA spies on us, not the CIA). They have enough problems with the outside world, they don’t need to worry about us too.

Police departments act under local civilian administrative authority; they take their orders from the Mayor and the Chief, not from Washington. These are just a few reasons why the argument of citizens needing guns to protect themselves from government is a faulty and false argument (others would include the First Amendment, the ballot box, and the list goes on…); it defies rational thought.

The second major misconception is that every citizen has the right to own any firearms that they want. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, people had flintlock muskets. This was a one shot firearm, slow to reload, and not particularly accurate. The citizenry did not own cannon or mortars (although the militias and British Army did), they had muskets. None of the Minutemen kept their cannon after the war.

I believe every household should have a shotgun and/or a rifle, as was intended. This makes perfect sense when placed into the context of having to hunt for your food and defend your homestead from marauders, native, neighbor, or wildlife. At the time, man was not necessarily at the top of the food chain, and a musket evened the odds against wolves, bears, and mountain lions.

But an assault rifle? High capacity magazines? Semi-automatic handguns? I have been in some seriously sticky situations in my life, and I have had my life threatened on more than one occasion, but I have never felt so threatened, that I thought that I needed a machinegun to protect myself. Plus, how many home invasions are carried out by large groups? Usually, it’s one or two men, and a shotgun can counter them both.

The Founders never conceived of machineguns and assault rifles, let alone advanced missile systems and the anti-personnel mine. Had they had advanced knowledge of just how adept humans would become at killing each other, and the devastating capabilities of today, they undoubtedly would have worded things a bit differently with regard to the right to bear arms.

Face it: you can’t hunt with a machinegun, unless you’re hunting for hamburger, because that’s all that you’ll get. Sure, you can try it as a semi-automatic single shot, but you would be better served by a deer rifle with a scope. But let’s get serious - how many people hunt with an assault rifle? I’d venture to say none, at least not in this country. Most gun owners who would have an AK, already have a collection of hunting rifles and assorted “sporting” paraphernalia.

And then there are handguns. Handguns then, have one design only - killing people. The only animal that you can hunt with a handgun is man. I don’t know about you, but I was taught to only kill what you are going to eat, and I draw the line at people.

Look, the fact remains that - psychologically - people are more afraid of blades than they are of guns. Americans have been desensitized to the reality of gunshot wounds. The bad guys just fall down on TV, they don’t scream in agony and writhe, choking in their own blood. But everyone has been cut before. We have an instinctive fight or flight instinct when confronted with a blade. Should we all start carrying swords and daggers again, in the name of “protection”? Good fencing makes good neighbors.

That being said, I’m am not advocating that Americans shouldn’t have firearms, I think that they should. But weapons and their owners should be regulated (as the Constitution implies), just like any other commodity that can prove harmful if misused; like vehicles, heavy equipment, drugs, or hazardous materials. I believe people should have access to them,… provisionally. But we’ll go into that later…

There were three reasons that the Second Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights. The first - which I have already mentioned - is that people lived on the frontier. This may still be applicable in the wilds of Alaska, but is certainly not so in Suburbantown, U.S.A.

The second reason was the Founders’ intense reservations about keeping a standing army - hence the “well regulated militia” verbiage - due to it’s expense, impracticality, and the likely perception of oppressive Government might (again, staying as far from tyranny, monarchy, and aristocracy as possible).

Third, they wanted the ability to call up defenders in an emergency (those “well regulated militias”), such as another French and Indian War (the French, who were still in Canada and Louisiana at the time), or just in case the British decided to return and restart some shit (which they eventually did, about 20 years later).

Those three reasons are why the Second Amendment exists. It would potentially provide for the common defense if the need were to arise, it would respect the honor and independence of it’s citizens by avoiding a standing army (saving on the expense as well), and it would provide the citizenry with an opportunity to feed and clothe themselves. Simple pragmatism and thrift.

The Supreme Court has made many rulings on the Second Amendment, and will most assuredly have to make more. Unfortunately, the “Constructionist” wing of the Court has consistently upheld the notion that the Second Amendment was designed to arm citizens against the State, against each other, and against any perceived threat. They seem to discount the intent of the Amendment itself, and focus solely on the precise verbiage. Really stupid for such smart people…

The Second Amendment does not give everyone unfettered access to firearms. It never has, nor should it. If it did, you could open a gun shop in the airport - with or without a permit to sell - or maybe open one in the lobby of a hospital, right between the gift shop and the pharmacy, and right downstairs from the psych ward. Or, you could open up a gun shop right across the street from an elementary school.

Yeah, that’s right,… a school.

Since Newtown, the NRA wants Big Government to put armed guards in every school. Texas’ Lt. Governor is already training teachers so that Texas can arm faculty, which it has begun to do already. Good idea… not! The idea that a gunman can only be stopped by superior firepower is fallacy, and only exacerbates the problem.

Guns don't kill people. People don't kill people. People with guns don't kill people. Nope. It's the high velocity projectile that usually does the trick.

The National Rifle Association. Yeah, there’s some folks who have our best interests at heart. The people who sell guns and make them, buy politicians to protect them, all while claiming to be protecting your rights to buy them, from them. Granted, not all NRA members are gun dealers; but every gun dealer, maker, ammunition maker, accessory maker, hunting products seller, and the like,… all belong to the NRA. It’s not like they have any really useful ideas, aside from boosting their sales.

They still want the Federal Government to implement a nationwide effort to place at least one armed police officer in every school in America. Maybe, the NRA should think about pursuing that avenue on their own dime. They could call it community organizing. Oh, uh… maybe not. Then again, maybe they shouldn’t assume that our schools need anything more than metal detectors. Ah,… but that would be a method of keeping guns out.

Let's say a gunman attacks a school. The armed faculty member would have to respond to the gunfire. This armed faculty member can only react to the sounds of gunfire, they wouldn't prevent it. In the meantime, bullets are already flying.

How long does it take for Coach to confront, and possibly take down the gunman?

How many lives does he save, or does he prolong the carnage and possibly add to it accidentally?

What if his interference enrages the shooter, who reloads and causes an even higher body count?

What if Coach himself gets taken out by the gunman, or even by the cops?

This cowboy mentality has got to change. Americans are not all some weird hybrid between George Washington and John Wayne (actually, I think we’re more of a cross between PT Barnum, Carrot Top, and a random Kardashian).

Life isn’t like TV, and the heroes often get killed. High intensity situations are unpredictable, and instantaneous. People react differently under pressure, and some people are already under too much pressure to begin with. No; an extra gun in school is not a good idea. It's already one too many.

The NRA’s next talking point alludes to guns not being the problem, it’s mental health in America that’s the problem. Granted as a nation, we do not adequately take care of our least fortunate, but don’t be fooled, the NRA could give a rats ass whether we take care of our own or not - to them, it’s every man for himself.

But my issue with this talking point is that it is a huge assumption to leap to the conclusion that mental illness has anything to do with mass shootings. Causation goes to motive, and it’s hard to find out the motives of a dead gunman. The Columbine kids weren’t crazy, and neither was Tim McVeigh or John Allen Muhammad, the Beltway Sniper. Crazy and committed are not the same thing.

Background checks can only catch post crazies, not potential or start-up crazies. One has to have a history of mental illness to be prevented from access to firearms. Most people who commit mass shootings do so with weapons that were purchased legally, after passing a background check. They just weren’t a card carrying mental patient when they bought their gun; only when they used it.

Another of their claims is that it’s not about legal guns, but it’s the illegal guns that we need to worry about. News flash: they are all legally obtained guns at some point. Over 70% of the weapons confiscated by Mexican officials in their continuing cartel wars are purchased legally right here in the United States. The only illegal guns are fully automatic military style weapons, and even some of those have been grandfathered in. Illegal guns is a nice way to say “guns that criminals have”, even if they were purchased legally.

The silliest claim of all though is that “Their gonna take our guns away!”. Yeah,… right. The government can’t catch tax dodgers and deadbeat dads, but they will somehow manage to confiscate every weapon in the country.

Isn’t it funny how some people can complain constantly of government incompetence and stupidity, yet they’ll believe that that same government is capable of successfully pulling off huge conspiracies, without any loose ends? It never ceases to amaze me.

Not only is this not even being discussed in serious circles, it would be next to impossible to do, and assuredly impossible to verify. Nobody has any idea how many guns are on the streets of America. It’s like asking how many jellybeans are in jar; the only way you’ll ever get it the right number is by counting them. I bet you can’t just eat one…

Right after the Newtown shooting, the NRA ran an advertisement calling the President an elitist and a hypocrite for calling for gun control, while at the same time making sure that his daughters are afforded armed security, twenty-four, seven. Okay,… now this one just pissed me off.

Hey NRA,… how dare you? First of all, let me explain this, and let me be perfectly clear for anyone with even half of a brain: He is elite. He is the President of the United States of America - it doesn’t get much more fucking elite than that. This is the Presidency we’re talking about, not a goddamned City Councilman or PTA member. Even the worst Presidents are elite.

Second, the Secret Service protects his children. The Secret Service has a duty to protect the American people by protecting our President, and by extension his family. What kind of bargaining chip would his kids be, if some bad guy decided to abduct them? Let’s get serious, the President doesn’t make that call - the Secret Service does. Just like they protected the Bush twins from date rape and alcohol poisoning.

In essence, what the NRA really needs to do is just shut the fuck up. They have a viral case of foot-in-mouth disease (or is it head-in-ass?). They make the most ridiculous statements, playing themselves off as the downtrodden, ever suffering, ever threatened, oppressed peasants, while demanding their right (which is not in question) to have guns to protect themselves from being, well… downtrodden, threatened, and oppressed. Isn’t there a disconnect in there somewhere?

There are many things that can be done that will afford individual people the right to bear arms while affording better safety, security, and accountability to We the People at large. Realistic regulation of firearms is an opportunity to enhance our rights, as well as lift certain restrictions, if specific provisions can be met.

The Constitution itself calls for regulation, and therefore, regulating guns is not an infringement of one’s rights, but a protection of everyone else’s. It is my right as an American citizen to feel that I can move about in public without being near a potential gunfight.

Lawful gun owners can continue to be lawful, there just might be some extra steps they’ll need to take to remain so. There are plenty of regulations that you could place on guns that would reduce the number of unregistered weapons trafficked in the U.S., to ensure the right to own an AR-15 with the 30 round magazine, and to follow the movement of weapons to criminal elements; while at the same time, protecting the public safety, and keeping them out of unwanted hands.

Here is my common sense, five point plan, that would largely take care of these issues:

1) All weapons must be registered. No “grandfather” clauses, no loopholes. If you have an unregistered weapon in your possession, it would be a felony. Prison time, period.

If it ain’t registered, you’re hiding it, and that would imply some nefarious intent - otherwise, why hide it?

2) All weapons must be licensed. Failure to have proper licensing would also result in a felony charge for each infraction and coupled with heavy fines.

Just like with the DMV, you need a license for whatever weapon you want to have. If you have semi-automatic pistols, than you would need an operators license for semi-automatic pistols. Just like differentiating between a class C drivers license and a CDL, different types of weapons should be categorized as such, with differing qualifying benchmarks to obtain licensing. Depending on the type of firearm, you would have to meet certain base requirements and pass testing. People who choose to own assault rifles and high capacity magazines would have harsher requirements and criteria to meet that somebody who has a .38 Police Special. This is no different than being able to drive a forklift vs. piloting an airplane.

3) When a weapon changes possession between two parties, not only should there be a background check and waiting period, there should be a change of title, so to speak.

Just like with a vehicle, there should be an official change of registration during transfer of the weapon between owners. It would be the seller’s duty to file the background check with the FBI and to provide proof of transfer, while it would be the buyer’s duty to register the weapon prior to physically receiving the purchased firearm.

4) If your weapon is used in the commission of a crime - with or without your knowledge and/or consent, you will be held criminally responsible.

When Junior accidentally shoots his little sister to death, the owner of the weapon should be charged with manslaughter/negligent homicide. When your buddy steals your AR-15 so that he can go shoot up a bookstore, you are an accessory. Not after the fact, you are an accessory to the crime. Think about it - accessory… root word: access… as in: How did the shooter gain access to the weapon? Criminally irresponsible gun ownership.

5) Any persons in an official capacity - local, state , or federal - would be held criminally responsible for their evaluations and approvals.

This would provide a serious incentive for government officials to avoid approving gun sales to questionable buyers. Having the person who signs the permit held accountable for the approval process would lessen the likelihood of “good ol’ boys” obtaining weapons because their cousin Cletus happens to work for the State Licensing Office.

Each of these five points - together or separate - would make gun ownership safer to all, owner and neighbor alike, while making it harder for weapons to fall into the wrong hands - criminals, terrorists, and the mentally ill. If responsible gun ownership were compulsory (and not just a meaningless talking point), then more people would be responsible with and for their guns. The fact is though, they just aren’t.

Some people would argue that it isn’t the government’s business what kind of hardware you’re packing. Well, the arguments that a tyrannical state will come down on you are moot, and the bit that they’re gonna take our guns is laughable.

The truth is, government has a duty to us all, collectively, and not just individually. Firefighters have access to the floor plans of our homes and apartments. The PUC has the plans for your power supply, both electrical and gas. The NSA has access to your telephone and internet traffic (and they use it). Credit agencies determine if you are a shitbag or not, and broadcast that information to anyone willing to pay their fee. Meanwhile, without your full knowledge and probably against your will, facebook pimps you out. Keeping track of the number of weapons in circulation is probably a pretty good idea, and much less invasive than most prospective employers are during the interviewing process.

The premise of these regulations is that - people who own these weapons should own them responsibly. This also would make them accountable for the whereabouts of those weapons. Newtown happened because Nancy Lanza’s was kid was an ignored sociopath, and had access to her guns. She’s dead now as a result, as well as 27 others, including her backward baby boy. But the shooting at the mall in Oregon - just days before Newtown - was perpetrated by a kid with his buddy’s gun. A gun stolen from under his nose.

Today, if I drive you to a liquor store, and while inside, you rob and kill the clerk, when we leave, I’m the getaway driver. That makes me an accessory to murder, after the fact. If somebody steals your gun, and commits a crime with it, you should be held accountable for that crime. It all boils down to - who has access to the weapon in question.

Then there are the entirely inadequate background checks… There should be a much broader range and diversification in what type of background checks are required for what type of weapons one intends to purchase. Different guns have different uses, different potential dangers, and should have different measures of protection.

Shotguns are simple: if you can spell your own name, and have never committed a felony or been committed yourself, you can have one.

Rifles should be almost as easy, with and minimum age requirement.

Revolvers: Criminal and medical/psychiatric reviews, as well as a sit down interview with law enforcement.

Semi-automatic weapons (including handguns): Criminal, financial, medical/psychiatric reviews, an interview, and a psychological profile. You cannot make an honest assessment of someone’s mental state by looking backward at a medical file; you have to look into their eyes.

And RPG? Get the fuck outta here.

The issuing authority should be accountable too, as they will have to make a thorough evaluation, and approve or deny the sale to the buyer. The background checks should consist of things such as personal interviews and psychological evaluations, credit checks, and personal and professional references, depending on the type of firearm that you want to purchase.

For criminals who use guns - gangbangers and such - enforce the most severe criminal punishments possible. These laws are already on the books, but juries are still allowed to “take into account” the severity of the crime. Bullshit. If you use a gun criminally, there is no first offense; you should do time.

These five points would do wonders to curb rampant gun violence, simply by tightening access to guns, and holding people accountable for their ownership. Guns are as much a fabric of American culture as cars; and as such, they should be regulated as much, if not far more, than cars. And there are all kinds of regulations regarding the maintenance, ownership, and operation of a motor vehicle.

By why let reason and wisdom interfere with such a fine commercial transaction as buying a killing device?