At least I hope so. It seems the current strategy to foil attempts to bring some sanity to the US gun control debate is for towns to require — yes, you read it right (sic) — every household to own a firearm. In Maine, voters in the town of Byron unanimously rejected a proposal that would have required every household to own a firearm and ammunition. Backers explained that the point of the unenforceable measure was to send a message to state and federal lawmakers trying to pass gun control laws.
In Nelson, Georgia, a city of 1,300 residents, which employs only a single police officer, has recently passed a law requiring the head of each household to own a gun “as a way to keep crime down.” The ordinance was approved unanimously by the City Council in Nelson. Admittedly, the gesture is merely symbolic as there is no penalty for violating it. It is meant to serve as an expression of support for gun rights and send a message to would-be criminals (Presumably, the message to criminals is “there are guns to steal here,” as homeowners are unlikely to be home for the break-in). Just for good measure, the law exempts convicted felons, residents with physical and mental disabilities, and those who do not believe in owning firearms.
Yet again we see the madness that inevitably accompanies the debate over gun laws in the United States. This latest folly comes after the December shooting rampage in which a gunman killed 26 people at a Connecticut elementary school. How many people have to die from guns before the NRA and its devoted followers lose credibility over its reliance on a bizarre interpretation of the Second Amendment?
Written at a time when no one had even conceived the idea of the sort of high-powered automatic weapons now readily available in America, the right to “keep and bear arms” was relevant to an entirely different social environment, not to mention very different weapon technology. If the Constitution is to continue to serve American citizens well, it must be relevant to current needs.
The arguments offered in support of owning guns for the protection of one’s home and family fail to pursuade me that a high-powered automatic weapon is needed. Nor have I ever seen any evidence that a significant amount of life or property has been appropriately “saved” or protected by the ownership of such weapons. On the other hand, there are mounting statistics showing that the availability of automatic weapons can — and does — result in the killing of large numbers of innocent people very quickly.
Owning a gun — especially a high-powered automatic — for the protection of one’s self, family, and property, presupposes that any threat will occur at the right time and place where one can access and use his gun of choice. Any weapons in the homes and trucks of the families of those killed in schools, theaters, shopping centers, and on public streets were of no use when needed. How many times do gun owners actually get to use their guns appropriately in the protection of house and home? It’s a theoretical argument, supporting a deadly reality.
Those who mount an argument in favor of unrestricted gun ownership for sporting reasons have likewise failed to explain why high-powered automatic weapons are needed for their sport. I’m betting the only reason one would need an automatic weapon is because s/he is such a lousy shot that s/he needs to be able to cut a wide swathe in order to hit the target. Pathetic.
Politicians don’t often have the opportunity to take a stand that actually saves lives (at home, anyway). Are your elected representatives counted amongst those brave enough and compassionate enough to take a stand for the protection of citizens from high-powered automatic weapons? Or are they among those who will continue to pander to the gun lobby? MM
The Meandering Matriarch 
Both President Obama and Mitt Romney have been fairly quiet on gun control. In 2008, candidate Obama supported a reinstatement of a ban on assault weapons that ended in 2004, but he has not taken action to renew it. Romney does not “believe in new laws restricting gun ownership and gun use.” However, as Massachusetts Governor, he signed the first state ban on assault weapons like the AR-15, which Holmes used in Aurora.
Over here we view what’s happening with disbelief. The right for ordinary citizens to carry a gun whilst going about their daily business seems at odds with a civilised society. Hope we never reach that point.
I suppose it is a matter of working out just where “that point” is… But surely it must be well short of the point where young children are being gunned down at school and innocent cinema-goers and diners are shot willy nilly
well … shoot themselves somewhere!
I’m with you. I think our brains work alike…
Many US States have recently passed laws making Federal gun control laws enforceable in those States and the pursuit/investigation of offenders of Federal gun control laws by Federal Agents, “a violation” or worse, of State laws.
Some State Legislators acknowledge that any attempts enforce these State laws will be referred to Federal Courts, but then add that the court judgements will be made by Federal Judges and that will be another opportunity to influence the results in favour of the States.
It is just one big game being played by State legislators who should spend more time responding to the needs of the voters, rather than pandering to the interests of the gun lobby.
Thanks, Jeff. It’s a worry, and to most of us a total mystery, given that no other country seems to have this fixation with guns–nor, indeed, the troubles they generate.
Well said! Need I say more? I don’t think so….other than…..thanks for making sense of it, Sue.