ENOUGH ALREADY: MANDATE RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERSHIP NOW!

Submitted by Fred McQuiggan Jr.
2-23-2000

Sometimes a fight goes on for so long that the warriors forget what they are even fighting about. This is exactly what has happened with the debate over gun control, where both camps have been battling for so long that now neither side stands on solid ground. The issue that must be addressed is not the exact meaning of the 2^nd Amendment, which both sides point to as "proof" of their righteousness. While the Constitution is not irrelevant, it is also not the infallible word of God. It is an inherently flawed document that was crafted with the intent to serve the common good of the people. It was never intended to be used as an instrument to bludgeon common sense out of discourse. In fact, the only place the words "that is unconstitutional" are appropriately uttered is in a courtroom. Besides that venue, virtually every idea is worthy of some consideration, even thoughts that are "unconstitutional." If laws don’t evolve, the nations they serve become extinct. Remember, the Constitution originally decreed that Blacks only counted as three-fifths of a person. The Founding Fathers made mistakes. If it is in the best interests of our nation to change the 2^nd Amendment, then it must be done. When confronted by an issue like gun control, the focus should be on what is best for the people, not what is Constitutional. Unfortunately, those on both sides of the gun control debate have a tendency to play their 2^nd Amendment hands as if they were insurmountable roadblocks for their opposition. The result of this strategy is that the real debate about gun control gets pushed to the sidelines, and the ambiguity of the Constitution becomes the focus. Meanwhile, the wrong people still get guns, children are shot while attending grade school and the rest of the world continues to define the United States as a nation obsessed with guns and gun violence.

On the Right we have the National Rifle Association (et al), who apparently believe that God, and the United States Constitution (generally not in that order) demand that a handgun be issued to every child at birth. They assure us that if everyone had a handgun the nation would be a safer place. "An armed society is a polite society" they claim. This safety is just an illusion, however. It is like one hundred people standing knee-deep in gasoline, each holding a matchbook. Where is the safety and security when the arbitrary actions of one whacko can pointlessly end the life of so many? Isn’t some control over who holds the matchbooks appropriate? NRA members might claim that nuts are already not allowed to get guns. Really? In Pennsylvania, for instance, persons are asked if they have mental problems when they buy guns. They say no, they get a gun. Does that sound like a good system to you? Privacy advocates have prevented any statewide "nut" database. So, your safety is linked to the honesty of paranoid schizophrenics. Why would they lie? Does the thought of a gun in every hand still give you that safe and cozy feeling?  Another argument that the NRA--and others--like to use to promote guns is that somehow a gun in every household prevents government "tyranny." Really? Are generals in the Pentagon--with their hands on the nuclear button-- worried about you and your Tech 9? Don't flatter yourself. The Soviet Union fell as a result of popular dissent by an unarmed populace. All the militiamen hiding in the hills, waiting to blow big brother away when he comes to enforce "his" laws should pay attention to the fate of members of MOVE and the Branch Davidians. The government wins every time. 

So, do we disarm  America? No way! Many liberals pine for the day when only the police and military are armed. The problem with this is that there are not enough cops to protect everybody and some people would never trust the cops to protect them anyway. Thanks to our friends in the NRA pushing irresponsible gun ownership for decades, disarming legal gun owners would leave the many remaining guns in the hands of criminals. This is not an option, since everybody should have the right to protect themselves. So what is the answer?  It is what the NRA has rejected as "unconstitutional" many times: Government-mandated responsible gun ownership. To legally possess firearms citizens should be required to:

Do these things sound unreasonable? I don't think so. The NRA will pull out the Constitution and tell me why they think I'm wrong. So what? If they continue to promote irresponsible gun ownership in the face of growing gun violence and tragedies involving innocent children, they will marginalize themselves even more. There is no denying that Americans have a right to protect themselves. Handguns can be a means to accomplish this. However, it is the government's duty to protect its citizens. They decide what cars are safe for the road, what strength pain reliever I can get without a prescription and how fire-resistant the inside of passenger planes must be. The government must exercise its authority and demand the safe, responsible possession of handguns. The alternative is a well-armed nation that is safe for nobody---everybody covered with gasoline, fearing the inevitable next strike of the match. McQ

Think I'm wrong?  Don't be shy.  Either sound off on our forums, or, submit your original opinion piece to FEEDBACK for possible publication here.