Happiness is a Warm Gub.. or .. The Second Amendment Follies

A right-leaning friend sent me two articles from a right wing internet site concerning gun ownership. One article related a stereotypical story of how a gun-wielding citizen was able to turn the tables on a mugger. The second story review some interesting happenings in Virginia where a newspaper used that state's version of the Freedom of Information Law to obtain and publish a listing of all citizens of Virginia who had a "carry" permit for a firearm.

All of this is a way of introducing my thoughts on gun control. Before I get into the subject, let's go to the source of the uncertainty about the issue, the second amendment to the Constitution (from Wiki):

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:

“ 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 hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:

“ 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. ”

Both versions are commonly used in official Government publications.

I find it astonishing that I, as a law-abiding citizen living in New York City (blogging is not yet a crime), must go through an onerous, expensive and unnecessary procedure in order to obtain a license to own a handgun. As I wrote to my friend,

I fail to see how liberals, who are always calling for expansion of rights, seek to restrict rights in an area where those rights are stated, however poorly, in the constitution.

If they feel that there is, for example, a right to abortion, based on a woman's right to control her body, why don't I, a law-abiding citizen, have the ability to properly exercise my right to obtain a gun? I think there is a logical basis for an almost "libertarian" position, in the truest sense,than in a "liberal" position.

I find the issue of gun control rather interesting because it seems to be so poorly defined. What is gun control? Out west you can go into a store, pick out a firearm, go through the federal screening process and then pick up your gun within thirty minutes. There is no presumption that you are a criminal buying the weapon with the intention of committing a crime. But out west, they believe that process is onerous! IN New York pay $900 in nonrefundable fees and wait six to nine months for a decision. Oh, if you have political connections or if you are a movie star, no problem, just pick up your permit!

Gun control advocates say that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill (the assumption being that the target here is a person). That is a false assumption. Guns are used for hunting and for target practice. Now, I've never hunted, nor do I intend to do so, but i love shooting at targets, trap, and skeet. I object to the presumption that I am a crazed, incompetent maniac. It's like a neurotic mother saying "You'll shoot your eye out!" ( Great part of Jean Shephard's "A Christmas Story"). I think the trend of control of potential threats was reached in Britain recently when the British medical association proposed that kitchen knives all have rounded tips rather than sharp points. The points were better for stabbing people, you know! Of course, rounded tips don't prevent you from a slashing attack. maybe they really want plastic cutlery and while they are at it , they can ban all scissors except those plastic ones you use in kindergarten(and exactly how many people are in the hospital for "running with scissors"?

So why not make the standard one of personal responsibility? If you commit a crime with a firearm, mandatory jail time. How does that sound?