Talk of gun control for a politician is analogous to having a shattered molar
with the raw nerve exposed.
C'mon. I dare you to drink a cold soda-pop (or talk about gun control).
There is one item which IS a rock-solid right enshrined in our constitution
by our founding fathers and with good reason:
The Right To Bear Arms.
What is NOT enshrined in the constitution is the right to have missile launchers, Sherman Tanks, small (or large nuclear devices), etcetera.
What is allowed is the right to own and cherish (kissing but no petting) exquisitely
manufactured devices that can hit
a Whitetail at a hundred yards, drill a target at six hundred yards or in the case of antique guns, give a nostalgic link to history or a beloved
ancestor who served their country defending freedom.
This author takes an interest in the technological leaps from Blunderbusses
to Pennsylvania Long Rifles to Winchester Repeating Rifles
to '03 Springfields to M1 garands to M4's and to tomorrow's incredible manufacturing techniques that will produce new variants
which are lighter, don't rust, shoot accurately and give us a hobby or secure our homes.
Granted, it's not for everyone. But it's not excludable.
Is it regulatable? Depends.
Should we limit the size of cruise missiles a homeowner may have? Yeah.
Whether they have "cop-killer" rounds or armor-piercing? Yeah.
Are snail drum magazines with a bazillion rounds a bit beyond what's useful for plinking or deer-hunting? Yeah.
(This author feels if one is in a situation where they require a hundred rounds,
they have more trouble on their hands than a mere hundred rounds will solve.)
Registration. Nope. Thin end of a wedge.
Background checks. Yep. Commonsense.
Mentally ill with guns. Nope.
Felons with guns. Nope.
There's lots of ground for agreement here. What's the fuss?
Conspiracy theories clouding the discussion? Put those aside.
Here are some areas which complicate the discussion.
Open carry or concealed carry?
Must absolutely be accompanied by rigorous vetting, licensing, classes, and regulations about where appropriate.
Not schools, not churches, obviously not movie theaters, not at political rallies.
Where does it make sense? Late night bank deposits from your business driving through a rough part of town. I'll buy that.
There might be other venues where appropriate.
Casual circumstances. I think not.
Rattlesnake infestations? I'd bet on thicker boots.
It is necessary to remember a particular law enforcement statistic.
The hit rate of a handgun at ten feet in a "situation" is fifty percent.
THIS INCLUDES LAW ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONALS.
How can wannabes assume they'll do better without endangering bystanders is a pertinent question.
Another item few people mention.
Returning combat veterans are understandably skittish at the sound of gunfire.
The presence of a firearm sends up antennae.
It is not fair to our Veterans to put them ill-at-ease, particularly when they fought for your right to bear arms.
This author cared for a man who landed at Omaha Beach in the first wave at Normandy on D-Day.
He said "those who were there don't talk about it." Likely they don't wish to relive it either.
Which brings us to another point.
Those who yell the loudest might not be those whom we want to carry guns or protect us.
Many times, guns and bigger and more powerful guns are a manifestation of feelings of being disenfranchised and powerlessness.
They are reactions to anger and a sense of confusion about a world that is changing faster than can be adapted to.
This is not what guns are for.
In a statistically miniscule sample, guns are for self-defense.
Otherwise, they are for the need to hit a Whitetail at a hundred yards,
drill a target at six hundred yards or in the case of antique guns, give a nostalgic link to history or a beloved
ancestor who served their country defending freedom .