Is it Time to Talk About Gun Control Again?

Those who are strong advocates of gun rights have won the war on this issue. The Supreme Court has clearly discarded the notion of the Second Amendment referring to arming militias and not individuals. Gun owners can be much more sanguine that nobody is going to take their guns away. Even if someone tried to take guns away they would not succeed because the courts and the law is clearly on the side of gun owners. The notion that a new Democratic Administration will try to outlaw guns makes little sense. In fact it is clear that no one in Washington wants to even discuss the issue.

One assumes that one of the reasons the National Rifle Association (NRA) was so adamant in fighting even the smallest possible infringement of gun rights was the concern that it might constitute a slippery slope, much as the old domino theory that led to the Vietnam War. It is to be hoped that with gun ownership safely ensconced in the constitution it might be possible to tone the rhetoric down and actually have some thoughtful conversations about dealing with gun violence.

No one can be complacent about the continuing instances of gun violence that plague American society. The shooting in Binghamton and the slaying of police officers in Pittsburgh are just the most recent examples of such horrific events. However, these two events do seem to raise special questions about where we are headed as a society. Both gunmen were wearing bullet proof vests. Most people don't wear bullet proof vests when they are out for a Sunday stroll or in case they might want to shoot up the town. Planning and premeditation would seem to be involved. In Pittsburgh, the gunman was using an AK-47. What was he doing with an assault rifle, and why did he need one? Even when the assault weapons ban was in effect it was possible to purchase and own legal assault weapons so that it was never absolute, but it did perhaps deter some who might otherwise have purchased or acquired such weapons. It is difficult to argue that there are compelling reasons for such weapons to be available to ordinary citizens in the community.

Does the second amendment mean that my neighbor can amass a large arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and there is nothing I can do about it? No one doubts that the first amendment protects freedom of speech. Yet we have passed laws since the founding of our nation to regulate free speech. We all know that this freedom does not give us the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded auditorium. We struggle with pornography, hate speech and other comparable issues in trying to determine appropriate restrictions on free speech that do not infringe on our rights as American citizens. Gun usage needs to be addressed in a reasonable way in the same way as we have done with all of our other freedoms. It is certainly not unreasonable to expect that guns be regulated with a view to keeping all of our citizens safe. Frankly, the most logical approach would likely involve licensing and registration, as we do with cars, drivers licenses, beauty shop operators, day care centers, physicians, etc. An unwillingness to accept such common sense categorizing of firearms might suggest less than honorable intentions.

The concern of those who feared government might disarm them has been addressed. I think it time that we address the concern of innocent citizens who become victims of senseless gun violence that might be reduced with sensible gun laws. Everyone agrees that we need gun laws and that they should be stringently enforced. We also need to look at those laws and tailor them in a way to make sure we are doing all we can to protect our citizenry within the framework of the second amendment. Such an effort requires meaningful debate among the citizens of our communities in which all points of view are respected, and preconceived notions are not used to determine the outcome of the debate regardless of what the facts or public opinion might suggest.