Frankly, all I can think and write about at the moment is how at this point any sane U.S. citizen can contemplate the issue of private firearms without questioning our slavish devotion to the 2nd Amendment since the end of the assault weapons ban.
It makes me curmudgeonly. I don't want to write that stuff and you don't want to read it.
So I'm out of here for a couple of days until my head clears and I can write about something else.
Take a break in place. Smoke 'em if you gottem.
4 comments:
I hear you, tho' I can't quite let it go. I am being more moderater-ish on my comment queue than usual, as it has some irrelevant off topic rantings surfacing.
My planned post for a holiday celebration certainly fell away like a fool walking off a cliff....and I miss it.
Gwynne Dyer's take
Ael: Interesting, the Dyer article.
Eventually I should try and sit down and write out where I stand on this business so as to prevent this coming back up here over and over again. But to give you the Clif's Notes version:
I think that we here in the U.S. really need to look at this, first, as a genuine problem that we can do something about. The shit we're hearing from the punditry that can essentially be distilled as "Heh, Whatchagonnado?" is just that, shit. We had this problem with drunk driving and took action. We had it with smoking, cancer, and took action. We CAN take action to make private firearms safer.
The first thing is to accept that there IS a calculation here; that IN THE U.S. more firearms = more death. You want to argue for unrestricted firearms ownership? Ya gotta start from the position "Unrestricted gun ownership is an overall positive DESPITE the fact that it will lead to more innocent deaths."
And I'm not saying that's an argument that's unmakeable. I don't agree with it, but we accept all sorts of tradeoffs like that. We know that if we set highway speed limits at 45mph that a statistically fewer people would die in high-speed collisions. We choose differently. But we DO accept the implicit basis for the argument first.
And, second, we also need to accept that there ARE ways to make firearms less deadly to the general public that DON'T imply confiscation. That's the most damning thing about the NRA, in my mind. The organization ALWAYS equates any regulation with confiscation, so, no closing ofthe gun-show loophole, no closing of internet sales, no reporting of stolen weapons, no "nutter list" of people who cannot own weapons...
What's crazy frustrating to me is that there's NO give from the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists here. No acknowledgement that the "right to keep and bear arms" does not contain explicit prohibition against We the People choosing to regulate the number, or type, or accessories like magazine capacity of said arms...
Anyway, I need to back away from this. I have literally no way to influence whichever way the Oregon legislature or the Congress takes this, I have a nasty feeling which way they WILL take it, and with the supposed celebration of Peace on Earth Goodwill toward Men coming up I need to get a little more cheerful and less fixated on this...
The full Second Amendment starts "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
WELL REGULATED MILITIA. So much scope there for reform.
If the pro gunners know what's good for them they will already be thinking creatively about ways to make the country safer. If all they do is dig in and whine, it will go badly.
Post a Comment