Gun Control: As It Should Be.



It’s time to talk about guns.

This is what we do, in this country, when another senseless act of violence takes place. We talk about guns, and more importantly, gun control.

As a left of center independent, I tend to get lumped into a catagory that I feel I do not belong in. I am not against a persons right to bear arms. What I am for is a far more stringent set of laws, and an even more stringent set of penalties to those who do not follow these laws. Also, a solid enforcement of these laws so there can be no confusion about the ramifications one would suffer if they violate these laws. This may sound like overkill, and it would not have prevented last Fridays massacre in Connecticut, but as we are talking about guns, I just wanted to make sure my stance, about what laws should be in place, are clear.

This isn’t 1750. There are 200 times more people in the United States now, and with no tyrannical red coats trying to take away ALL our rights, the reasons that led to the 2nd amendment are no longer relevant. This in no way means that the 2nd amendment should be repealed, but the rules governing guns need to be regulated……NATIONALLY.

You must pass some type of test, or course, to obtain a gun license. For any gun.  I can’t get a license to drive without passing a test. The same should apply here. Plain and simple. I know gun lovers hate the gun license/drivers license analogy because “Gun ownership is a right, driving is a privilege.” If that’s true, than why can an ex-con get a driver’s license, but not a gun permit? Why can’t a person with a history of mental instability get a gun permit, but can still drive a car? There are already measures in place to prevent people who should’t have guns from legally obtaining them, so it is already clear that a right can, and will, be regulated, for the benefit of public safety.

If a person needs a license to drive a car, than why should they not be required to have the same thing for a gun. I am fully aware that more people are killed by cars everyday than by guns, but the mortality rate for being in a car accident is probably lower than it is for being shot, so they ARE dangerous. I know not every state requires one, but they all should. However, this license should be free. As long as you have passed your gun class, you should be able to obtain your license at no cost, much like it should be for a voter ID. You should not be required to pay a fee for something that is your right to do.

If you obtain the license to drive, you then have to buy a car. To use that vehicle legally, you must register it. The same should apply to all guns. Why should it be more important to know what vehicles are on the road, than what guns are out there. It shouldn’t. If all new weapons, from this day forward, had to be registered upon purchase, than re-registered if sold and purchased by someone else, than it would make it harder to sell it illegally, to an unlicensed person. Again, this should not cost you a dime.

Now this one may seem a little odd, but in keeping with the car analogies, you should not be able to purchase ammunition online or by phone. If you have to go to a gas station to buy fuel, than you should have to go to a gun store to buy ammo. Furthermore, your gun license should be required to make all purchases, which would make buying 6000 rounds of ammo, in 4 months, an action that would send up a huge red flag. Now, I understand that you don’t have to show your license to buy gas, but you get my point. Additionally, anything that requires you to merely hold down the trigger and spray, should not be in the hands of anyone but the military or swat teams.

Many of the things I have mentioned already exist in certain states. I just believe that it should exist in ALL states. The ultra pro gun folks will cry about the fact that the government has no business knowing how many weapons they have. I disagree. Weapons are dangerous, and whether or not they are used to protect yourself or not, they are designed to cause severe bodily harm or death. Not the kind of thing that anyone should be able to obtain with complete anonymity.

Even if these laws were implemented nationally, with severe penalties, and enforced fully, it would not be able to prevent all acts of senseless violence. That is why I am a firm believer that we SHOULD all arm ourselves. Everyone. The right screams all the time that if people were allowed to carry guns everywhere, that the criminals would be outnumbered, and good citizens could take back the streets. You know what? I AGREE!!!! Would there be some bumps in the road along the way? Absolutely. Would an innocent person get hurt, or even killed, as a result of this scenario? Probably. However, eventually, enough bad guys would start ending up dead, and future bad guys would begin to rethink committing crimes in the first place. It may take a number of years, but what do we have to lose?

If all the points I have made are not enough to convince you to arm yourself, than let me leave my fellow lefties with this thought. If the United States was somehow, someway, invaded by a foreign entity, the crazy NRA righties will be the ones saving your butts. However, in the more likely possibility that this country endures another civil war, (don’t think it can’t happen) those same crazy NRA righties, will be the enemy. Are you prepared for that? I know they are.

Published by jwc

Just my thoughts on whatever has my attention.

8 thoughts on “Gun Control: As It Should Be.

  1. Archie Bunkers’ solution to airplane hijackings: Arm all the passengers. This was a joke in an “All In the Family” episode years ago. Is it still funny. Good question.

  2. I completely agree on all points. The right to bear arms is a right that I want preserved but there has to be some sort of happy medium. Keeping a gun in the house to protect your family and property makes sense but there is no good reason for any individual to have his or her own personal military arsenal in their basement. Anyone who attempts make an argument for it needs to have their head examined.

    1. Should gun ownership (a right) be treated the same way as driving (a privilege)? I don’t think so.

      I know you’re not suggesting a ban on gun ownership, but you are suggesting creating additional barriers to the exercise of a guaranteed right. What if this were a different guaranteed right such as freedom of speech? Would you be receptive to the government tracking the number of protests a person has attended or if the government prevented people from attending certain types of protests?

      How about an inferred right such as the right of choice? Would you be okay if women had to pass a test on how to properly use birth control prior to being eligible for an abortion?

      The day you decide to weaken any right is the day you decide to weaken all of them.

      1. 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.

        These words were written at a different time in this countries history. I think the root of the problem is that it has been misinterpreted from pertaining to a “well regulated militia”, made up of people who are members of that well regulated militia (with the rights, responsibilities, command and control that goes along with that) to every lunatic who wants to own a gun. That is why I believe it needs to be regulated.

  3. @Frank – *clap* *clap* *clap*
    @jwc – I have taught on this many, many times but I never tire of it. The “regulation” that you speak of is the regulation of the “Militia” not the “right”. The state’s Governors have been charged with regulating the militias which they haven’t done in many years (shame on our Governors) and their is no mention or precedent involving the regulation of rights( does your freedom of speech change from state to state?). This regulation of the militia includes drilling, training, educating, promoting, etc. The militia is the people. Regulate (the synonym used during the late mid-18th century was “organize”) the militia, do not regulate (infringe upon) the rights. It is all very clear.
    @Jeff – Frank stole my thunder. Your point is terminally flawed in that the “right” to operate a motor vehicle is actually a “privilege” and not a right. A quick call to your local RMV will clarify this for you. The right to bear arms is absolute and not to be regulated (remember, it is the militias that are regulated not the right) nor infringed. In fact, I would only disagree with Frank in that when he says “the day you decide to weaken any right is the day you decide to weaken all of them” I would point out that the 2nd amendment is often referred to as the “guardian right” which stands to affirm the People’s right to defend all of their other rights, as a last resort, with firepower. James Madison knew this when he wrote the Bill of Rights insomuch that the 2nd amendment is the ONLY right affirmed that includes the stern portent “shall NOT be infringed.”

    It is the MOST important Constitutional right, actually. It is not to be infringed, regulated or otherwise infringed in any way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: