Searching for Common Sense

After the Newtown tragedy in December 2012, the government’s role in gun regulation has assumed a noisy spot in the nation’s dialog. It’s been a long time coming, and thanks to recent Supreme Court decisions (District of Columbia v Heller 2009 and McDonald v Chicago 2010) that determined the Second Amendment protected the individual’s right to self-defense rather than the stated, “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 nature of the conversation has moved violently to claims of gun regulation is tantamount to tyranny.

The genesis of the 2nd Amendment was due to the British and Loyalists forcibly stripping Patriots of ALL firearms to ensure they could not raise a militia. The comparison of Patriots’ situation to the current regulation discussion veers off the course of logic and common sense, in my view. It’s simply not the same.

So, for those of you doing the considering, please answer the following questions, preferably in detail.

1. Do you feel it more likely to have a semi-automatic rifle used against you by your government or by another random citizen? How would you express these percentages? How did you derive these percentages? Are they based on total number of US citizens attacked by semi-automatic rifles wielded by those following direct command of the US government (Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Kent State come to mind – though I don’t think Kent State used semi automatic weapons) vs those used in tragedies such as Aurora, Newtown, and Columbine?
2. Same question regarding high volume ammunition clips.
3. Explain why detailed paperwork is required for selling cars but shouldn’t be required for guns. Also clarify why background checks and waiting times are targeting law-abiding citizens but most people are ok with obtaining and renewing a drivers license and maintaining auto insurance, if the misuse of both can and has resulted in the death of innocent individuals.
4. Finally, explain how your right to own that AK semi-automatic rifle and multiple ammo clips pre-empts my right to feel safe as I inhabit, unarmed, the same general vicinity.

I can’t see the logic in resisting regulation on military grade weapons with large ammo clips and background checks and waiting times. I don’t see the common sense.

Believe it or not, I’m not anti-gun. My father owns several rifles. He has gone hunting and rather enjoys it. My uncle and cousins in Utah are also hunters. Each of them owns and knows how to use a gun. My brother in law Eric owns multiple rifles and several handguns. My mom, at 70 years old, wants my dad to buy her a rifle so they can go target shootin’ together (it’s a Georgia thing). And I have absolutely no problem with any of it, because these guns have purpose. Each owner knows how to use their gun and is extremely careful with it. I have a profound respect for those that use firearms to be self-sufficient. It’s a rare ability and, in many ways, a gift.

When I was growing up, my father kept his guns up high in the closet where my sisters and I couldn't hope to reach them. The bullets were hidden – 30 years later, I still don’t know where. No member of my family (that I know of anyway) carries a gun on them. And in all honesty, I’d trust only Eric, my Uncle Mark, and my friend Bill (a modern-day Huck Finn if ever there was one) if I were ever in need of defense by firearm (sorry Dad). I think I should personally be denied any background check to purchase a gun owing to my depression. Not that I’m dangerous, but it’s enough of a risk that there are better options available to me. 

Like buying shoes.

But I still don’t see why any members of my family or friends would need a military grade weapon (though they may have them – I haven’t asked, and they don’t tell). Nor do I see why gun regulation should be equated with tyranny.

Tyranny is “the arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority”; or “government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.” You may hyperbolically feel President Obama is a tyrant, but it’s impossible to prove this based on his record. As one who voted for him twice, I’d actually prefer it to be easier to prove him a tyrant – then he’d have been more successful in fulfilling his agenda. But he’s been stymied at almost every turn. Tyrants are never stymied. Just ask the jiffy-pop-quaffed North Korean kid with the severe Oedipal complex.

Using tyranny to describe gun regulation is pure hyperbole. And it’s dangerous hyperbole -- both for the public discourse and for proponents against gun regulation. If you disagree, disagree, by all means (this will be a topic in which people premise their arguments on far different assumptions -- which explains the lack of middle ground). But don’t subvert your argument by using language that cannot be substantiated by fact.

With 2009 and 2010 Supreme Court decisions (and the Supreme Court isn’t always right – Dred Scott v Sandford; Plessy v Fergusson; Korematsu v U.S.), it implicitly added credence to the argument that the individual’s right to defend his/herself against an undefined enemy pre-empts the right of unarmed individuals potentially harmed by those armed individuals – because the unarmed individuals aren't explicitly protected in the 2nd Amendment (The Declaration of Independence isn't  unfortunately, a legislative document, and therefore its claim of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” is not applicable).

However, in July 2012, shortly after the Aurora, Colorado, shooting, even Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the more (if not the most) conservative justices, recognized that gun regulation will need to be “carefully” considered:

My starting point and ending point probably will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. They had some limitation on the nature of arms that could be born. So, we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/)

In my view, if we should experience tyranny from our government, it will not come at the end of a barrel of a gun. That comes very, very last. Control of information will be the initial target. If you’re concerned about tyranny, if you want to protect your rights, you should be protecting your right to information and your right to privacy first and foremost. If it comes to a point when we really need to protect our right to bear arms, most likely we'll already be too late – we'll have been living under a tyrant for years and just not realized it. 

If we protect our right to give and receive information and protect our own information, we should never get to that point. If we prudently regulate guns, we may save lives without actually infringing on constitutional rights of individuals. 

I think it's just common sense.