Notice I didn’t call it ‘gun control’. There are 3 reasons for owning a weapon, be it a hand gun, rifle, knife, sword, etc: self defense, sport, and to overthrow the government if it should become tyrannical….but more on those in a little bit.
One of the core problems with any social issue is that there are those conservatives that want to fall back on a strict constructionist approach to the Constitution when it suits them as a way to shut down any attempts to allow society to move forward. Weapons policy is one such social issue where they try and do this.
However, when they do so, they conveniently forget some basic facts. When the 2nd Amendment was written:
- there was not a single weapon on the planet that could fire more than one time without the need to be manually reloaded,
- it was understood implicitly that citizens could not own cannons,
- citizens could not own warships (even rich ones that became privateers were outlawed with the end of piracy in the 1700’s),
- many towns had a central armory where weapons were kept.
The simple fact is that weapons of the day change. Our forefathers could not have anticipated the modern weaponry we have today for both civilian and military use. Indeed, they themselves knew that they could not foresee all of the changes of future society. Thankfully our Founders intentionally wrote the Constitution as an open-ended document so that it could be amended to change with the times as well.
As Thomas Jefferson famously wrote (and is memorialized on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC)….
“I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
– Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816
Since 2020, the leading cause of death of children in the United States is guns. Nowhere else in the world is it even in the top 4 causes of death for children in comparably “advanced” countries. I would argue that is the very definition of forcing modern society to live under the barbarous rules of their ancestors as Jefferson mentioned.
Now, in consideration of all of the above, let’s go over each of those 3 reasons for owning weapons, of any kind.
Self Defense—Absolutely, if someone wants to own a knife or handgun or traditional rifle or shotgun for their own personal protection, or the protection of their family and loved ones, then that is their right and I support it. I even support open carry laws. But there should also be a limit to how many weapons someone can have, shouldn’t there?
Isn’t that just common sense to say that a single individual does not have a need for more than X amount of knives or guns unless they are re-sellers or collectors and some kind of regulatory agency is providing oversight of their extensive collections?
How many times have we seen mass shootings such as the Charleston church shooting where the shooter either possessed hundreds of guns or had access to so many guns that the owner didn’t know that any were even missing. That simply should never happen and is irresponsible.
Furthermore, for self defense, there is simply no need for semi-automatic or automatic weapons, or armor piercing ammunition.
And lastly, if there is ANY personal or family history of law enforcement issues, depression, or other mental health concerns, either with the individual that the weapons are registered to or that live with the registered owner, then we need to have a serious discussion about how to handle that.
Do we require the registered owner to prove that no one else has access to the weapons?
Do we require the removal of the weapons and revoke the permit if it is the owner themselves that have these issues?
I don’t see why either of those should be controversial.
Any weapon owner has a duty and responsibility to the rest of society to be responsible with their weapons and thankfully the majority of them are, but sadly there are many that are not, and those are the ones that wind up having guns stolen from unlocked cars, or depressed teenagers stealing their guns to commit mass murder, or wind up getting into domestic violence disputes that escalate into permanent tragedies….all 100% preventable, and all happen way too often, on almost a daily basis in our country.
Sport—There is a legitimate argument to be made that all weapons, even automatic assault rifles should be able to used at rifle ranges and competitions for sporting purposes. Heck, I think it would even be cool if regular citizens could go to special places and after being trained on them, get to fire and use other heavy duty military equipment like tanks and fighter jets and rocket launchers. Who are the rest of us in society to judge what others consider a sport or a hobby?
However, just like any other dangerous sport or hobby, the government gets a big say in how you go about doing it and where, so that innocent people do not get hurt. For example, drag racing cannot be done on open roads. The same principle should apply to weapons used for sports purposes.
If you want to use an AR-15, Uzi, or RPG launcher for sporting purposes, knock yourself out, but you just can’t own one…..you can rent one at the range like bowling shoes and turn it back in when you’re done.
As for hunting, as any hunter knows, if you try to hunt with a semi-automatic or automatic rifle, a) there won’t be much left to eat of what you kill so there better be a McDonald’s nearby, and b) you must not be a very good shot if you have to catch your prey with a hail of gunfire, which kind of takes away the sport part of it anyway.
Overthrowing The Government—Have you ever noticed that those who most stridently argue that this is still a legitimate option and why they so fervently defend their absolute right to all weapons are the same folks who most seem to support heavy handed government tactics with protestors that they don’t agree with?
As I have stated before, I believe strongly that the pen is mightier than the sword. What we can and have accomplished in society throughout the ages via the written word far outweighs any gains made on the battlefield.
Even if a large portion of the population had semi-automatic and automatic weapons, do you really think they would stand a chance against our military, which is the very best and most lethal in the entire world and the arsenal at its disposal?
Do you really think a group of pissed off white guys in middle America armed with AR-15’s can do very much against an M1A2 Abrams main battle tank if it ever came to that? Or against an Apache attack helicopter armed with Hellfire missiles, a 30mm chain gun, and 70 mm rockets?
Even going back to shortly after our founding with the Whiskey Rebellion, when our citizens were basically evenly matched with our military in terms of the weapons at their disposal, the rebels dispersed in the face of superior numbers before a single shot was fired.
If they knew then that it was hopeless, the South should have known it would be hopeless as well in 1860, when the total economic output of the entire confederacy was less than 25% of just the state of New York’s economy alone.
The point is, it is futile and stupid to try and overthrow the government with weapons.
Some people have tried to argue that gun control is the first step toward tyranny, just like in Nazi Germany. If one takes the time to brush up on those pesky things called facts, the only people who were restricted from having weapons were Jewish people and other groups the Nazis felt were undesirable, and if anything they loosened gun laws on everyone else.
The bottom line is that ‘overthrowing the government’ hasn’t really been a viable option for overthrowing the government from day one in 1789, has become less viable of an option as time and technology has advanced, and at the end of the day far more can be accomplished through social media.
Changes I Would Make To Our Weapons Policy—In short, regulate them just like cars to a large degree. Mandatory background check including mental health records, 7 day waiting period, title and tag when each one is sold, mandatory training course, written test, practical test, health requirements (both physical and mental), liability insurance on each weapon, and licenses would have to be renewed and weapons inspected at regular intervals.
Furthermore, if a weapon is stolen and not reported within 24 hours, then any crimes that are determined to have been committed with the weapon will open the owner up to civil claims.
If a weapon is stolen the owner must undergo remedial training on properly securing weapons as well as more rigorous and routine inspections of weapon storage.
If an owner fails to report a theft within 24 hours a second time, then they are fined and eligible to be charged with a crime of endangering the public welfare and their ability to buy firearms revoked for 1 year.
Lastly, with regard to technology, we must do everything we can to promote the use of ‘smart’ technology into gun manufacturing.
Just like cell phones can only be opened by their owner, there should be the ability, either by fingerprint or PIN # or voice to make it so that only the owner can use the gun. This would render it completely undesirable to criminals.
Once we start making all new guns “smart” guns, and only smart guns, then the ammunition can be made differently too so that it only works with the smart guns and slowly over time all of the guns being held by criminals will be rendered useless once the ammunition for them runs out.
Perry Waag 