The Cries for Gun Control

(See here) a Washington Post piece written by Op-Ed columnist E. J. Dionne Jr that seems to attempt to open up a debate about gun control.

In this piece, Mr Dionne seems to attempt to cloak himself as a reasonable voice willing to take on the "unreasonable" National Rifle Association.

Note how the piece opens with the question:

Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing?

At least there is an admission that no reasonable debate happens, it is all just an argument. Each side puts forth their position and is unwilling to consider the statements and opinions of the other side. So, to answer the question why do we have the same futile argument every time? How about this for an answer? Gun control advocates use every horrible event involving guns to trot out the same old tired (and perhaps even unreasonable) arguments.

Now Mr Dionne attempts to make the point that in order to win some type of new, additional gun control action, reasonable goals must be set by gun control advocates. He then attempts to open the debate with specific questions which I guess he thinks any "reasonable" citizen will side with him when answering. Mr Dionne attempts to obtain clarity by asking these three questions:

Okay, let's be specific. What would the NRA's objection be to a law requiring gun dealers to establish whether a potential buyer is a student and, if so, to inform (or even get permission from) the student's high school or college before any weapons could be sold? What about raising the minimum age for purchasing a gun to 25 or 30? Why not renew the ban on the sale of assault weapons?

First, let me state that I am not a member of the NRA (National Rifle Association) that Mr Dionne rails against. I also do not currently even own a firearm. I am going to take on each question asked individually in an attempt to help explain why gun control advocates find it so hard to make any headway while they insist upon unreasonable measures.

Question 1: What would the NRA's objection be to a law requiring gun dealers to establish whether a potential buyer is a student and, if so, to inform (or even get permission from) the student's high school or college before any weapons could be sold? I can't speak for the NRA (to whom the question was posed) however I can speak as an "ordinary" citizen. Why do you propose an individual must be willing to surrender the right to own a gun just to be a student? What? If the student had only taken up carpentry he is fit to own a weapon but for some reason enrolling in a college makes him unfit? If he takes up truck driving he can seek out to purchase a weapon but if he enrolls in college he now must ask for permission from the college he is enrolled in first? For some reason enrolling in college signals a special character flaw in the individual that requires denial of rights of every other citizen that does not enroll? This question is ludicrous and Mr Dionne by even asking it exposes his position as being unreasonable. Perhaps (some would say certainly) bearing arms could be restricted while on campus. However to completely bar the student from the right to own a weapon BECAUSE he/she is only a student is absurd.

Question 2: What about raising the minimum age for purchasing a gun to 25 or 30? Let me get this straight. Our society has decided the "age of majority" is 18. At this age, the individual is allowed to enlist in our armed forces and we even pay him/her to bear arms to defend his country. Perhaps even more succinctly, 18 is the age at which entrust an even more lethal weapon, the right to vote. Mr Dionne thinks the majority of these adults below a certain age can't be trusted to own a firearm? What the heck, let's then also restrict their ability to own an automobile and deny them the right to obtain a driver's license! Here we have yet another absurd proposal.

Question 3: Why not renew the ban on the sale of assault weapons? OK, here finally we are starting to see at least a shred of reasonableness. Now, personally, I am against the ban on assault weapons, however I will agree that there must be some type of ban that restricts the lethality of weapons citizens are allowed to possess. Personally, I draw my line somewhere above semi-automatic assault weapons and somewhere below automatic 50 caliber machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. Not every citizen is entitled to own their own pocket sized nuclear weapon - grin. Personally, I am unswayed by arguments that the only purpose of an assault weapon is to kill people, that these weapons can not be used in hunting game, so they qualify for restriction. My opinion is that reason for the Second Amendment to the Constitution is so that citizens, previously armed, can band together in militias, if need be, to defend themselves from any tyrannical government that might arise and attempt to impose tyranny. My opinion is that assault weapons should be allowed BECAUSE they are meant to kill human beings. However I will agree that there are limits to the lethality of weapons that every citizen should be allowed in order to defend themselves. I think assault weapons, and even banana clips for these weapons, should be allowed. Perhaps where I draw the line is not where the line should be drawn. However I will continue to insist that the reason for the Second Amendment was not solely so that the average sportsman could enjoy the right to bag a deer during hunting season. The reason for the Second Amendment is to give the average citizen the right to defend himself against his own government if the need for such defense arises. Just how lethal do the weapons that can be obtained by the average citizen need to be to accomplish this goal? Here, at least, I am still open to arguments. My own argument is that they need to be at least as lethal as semi-automatic assault weapons which are designed only to kill people, but I might not win the argument.

Let me conclude this piece by answering one final question which Mr Dionne asks. It is the question with which he concludes his piece:

One more question: Why are our politicians still cowering before the gun lobby after Virginia Tech?

My answer: I do not think the politicians are cowering before the gun lobby. They are cowering before the number of citizens to which the "right to keep and bear arms" is important and these numbers exceed those of the members of the NRA. For many citizens, this is a hot button issue upon which they base their voting decision. Personally, I only give this issue "some" weight, however it is an important issue upon which I base my decision. Politicians who do not understand that our freedoms are based upon the right of the populace to defend themselves against tyranny, even tyranny from their own government, expose themselves to me.