Ready, Aim, Fire!

It's said that there are some topics you should never discuss with people you don't know. Race, religion, and politics are a few; in this country, gun control is another.

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, which seeks to overturn the city of Washington, DC's ban on residents owning handguns. This is the first time in many years that the issue of Americans' cherished right to own guns has been addressed at this level, and the issue bears some serious thought.

The second amendment to the Constitution reads in full:

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.

People in this country have been arguing about those twenty-seven words for years. There are those to whom the right to own any types of guns in any number is nearly sacred, and there are those to whom the vast number of guns loose in the country is a deadly danger to the innocent. Suggesting to an American gun enthusiast that there should be limits on gun ownership will elicit a reaction similar to the one you get from publishing cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. It's one of the most passionately divisive issues in the United States today.

Let me establish a few key points right up front:

1. I don't own any guns. This isn't because I object to them, it's simply because I've never seen any need to own one. When I was young, we had a rifle and a shotgun at home, and my father and brothers used shotguns to hunt geese. My limited hunting experiences were all with bow and arrows, which I just thought were more sporting.

2. I don't care if you own any guns, as long as you keep them under control and don't threaten me with them.

As you know if you are a regular reader of this blog, I value calm, rational discussion of issues. We may never agree on everything, but if we can discuss things like reasonable people, we can at least reach a friendly truce. Unfortunately, it's hard to have a rational discussion of gun control. People seem to be hysterically passionate one way or the other, and unwilling to seek reasonable accommodation of each other's views.

That said, here is Bilbo's take on the issue of The Right to Bear Arms...

Speaking with all the authority granted by a 35-year old degree in Linguistics, the wording of the Second Amendment seems pretty clear: the right to "bear arms" is linked with the need of a new nation in the late 18th century to maintain a militia for its defense against external enemies. Americans have a traditional mistrust of large standing armies (which can, like the army of King George III, be used to oppress the citizens); we traditionally preferred the citizens' militia that could be called up when needed and sent home when the danger was past.

There is a reluctance on the part of gun advocates to admit that the America of 2008 is not the America of 1776. The dangers we face are different, and our requirement for weapons is different. In 1776, if you lived outside of a city, you ate what you grew, trapped, or shot. You didn't have the option of going to the local supermarket to buy meat for supper...if you wanted meat, you hunted it and killed it yourself. In 2008, you drive to the Safeway and buy it. In 1776 you ran the risk of attack by Indians or wild animals, and had to be able to defend your family. Today, you dial 911 for the police to come and protect you, and depend on the Army to protect you from external threats.

Firearms today are much more powerful and accurate than they were in 1776. In 1776, you had a single-shot musket that wasn't accurate at very long distances. In 2008 you can buy a 9mm pistol with a 15-round magazine that will let you hit a small target at long distances.

My point is that the situation today is very different from what it was when the Constitution was written. I do not advocate rescinding the Second Amendment, but I think the time is right for a rational discussion of what needs to be done to reduce the level of gun violence in this country...and I don't think encouraging more people to carry guns is the answer.

Here's what I propose:

1. Acknowledge that there are some types of guns we just don't need. Military-style semiautomatic assault rifles aren't needed for hunting deer, and a 9mm Glock with a 15-round magazine probably isn't the weapon of choice for hunting bighorn sheep in the Rockies.

2. If you think you need a gun for protection, buy one. More than one is, literally, overkill.

3. Don't ban guns per se...ban large-capacity magazines, which have no legitimate purpose for hobby needs like hunting or target shooting. All they do is provide massive firepower for those who probably shouldn't have it.

4. Instead of keeping guns away from those who are otherwise entitled to own them, impose draconian penalties for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime. I'd suggest a mandatory 5-year minimum sentence without possibility of parole for the use of a gun while committing a crime. If a gun is used in the commission of a crime and results in injury to the victim, the mandatory sentence should be at least 10 years. If a person is killed with a gun in the commission of a crime, the minimum sentence should be at least 20 years, without parole.

I don't know what the Supreme Court will decide, but it will be tremendously important to every American, because it goes to the heart of one of our most passionately-advocated rights. We all have a stake in the outcome, whether we own guns or not, because we should never take the infringement of our Constitutional rights lightly.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather see beautiful ladies with bare arms than beautiful ladies bearing arms.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo