My Sense of Gunsense

A few of my Facebook friends were probably a bit surprised when I posted a message of support for those on my list that live in Pennsylvania and hunt.  Monday, Dec 2, was the first day of deer hunting season. 

This may surprise a few people, on both sides of the gun debate, but I don't see myself as "anti-gun".  The NRA and its allies have been skillful at framing this as a black and white issue.  I have no issue with a person having a firearm for hunting, target and other sport shooting, or even personal protection.

What I, like groups like the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Moms Demand Action, simply want to see is a little common sense.  And, after several requests, if not challenges to do so, I feel it is time to give my sense of "gunsense".

The 2nd Amendment was put in the Constitution, for a reason.  Like all of the Bill of Rights, it was a response to something.  One must remember that America after our Revolution was a frontier nation, with threats from without and within, some have argued that the fear of a slave rebellion may have been a driving force behind the 2nd Amendment.  We also lacked a standing army, so the States did indeed need to defend themselves.  America has changed to become a more urban nation, and a more diverse one.  Like any part of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment needs to be interpreted with the times.  Also, the 2nd Amendment calls for a "well-regulated" militia, a far cry from the vigilante mentality of those that so often seem to be the face of the gun lobby.

I wonder why the gun lobby seems to feel that assault rifles like an AR-15 are in any way in line with the Founder's vision or common sense.  What person needs a 50 round magazine to hunt an animal, or protect them self.  I can see a smaller magazine being useful for sport shooting events.  To me these weapons seem to be more for a rebellion or for playing out what people see in games like Grand Theft Auto, etc.  Now these weapons could be a case of them being a money maker for the manufacturers that the NRA may little more than a trade group for.  Banning these weapons or limiting the size of their magazines makes sense to me.

A common meme of the gun lobby is that guns don't kill people, people do.  But people with guns, as places like Newtown, etc have pointed out can kill many more in a shorter amount of time.  What is so wrong with making sure that the insane or felons cannot access firearms.  Limits on straw purchases can fall under this rubric as well.  The NRA, etc claim to represent the "law-abiding" so what are they afraid of.  Once again, it may be a matter of sales.  Colt, etc, may have little regard for who purchases their wares, it's just another sale to them. 

Finally, with the power to kill, comes the responsibility.  With "Stand your Ground" and "Castle Doctrine" laws, citizens in many cases have greater license to kill than a police officer.  Gun owners needing to carry liability insurance like automobile owners, and requiring deadly force training for concealed carry would seem to make sense.  Of course, as their rhetoric shows, the NRA does not seem to deal often with common sense.

Buying in? 

Earlier this week, Harrisburg's National Public Radio affiliate reported that there has been a rise in applications for gun permits in the region it serves, a region that is fairly rural.  I can't help but think a lot of this has to do with rhetoric from the NRA and right-wing media.  

The idea that "Obama wants your guns" or "Bloomberg wants your guns", might be leading people to get their permits so they can be grandfathered in.  

Or it could be more of the notion that the America of rural America is fading as the nation becomes more urban, and as younger people grow up in a more diverse and tolerant society.  They may see revolution as the only solution.