I will begin this way. I have owned guns in the past. While I owned guns, I never harmed, nor threatened to harm, anyone with a firearm. Luckily I was never forced to use one in self defense. While I owned those firearms, I was not privy to the fact that a legal gun owner is more likely to end up commiting suicide with that firearm or shooting a friend or family member than a criminal.
I respect thoughtful responsible gun owners in general and responsible hunters specifically. However, I am comfortable to assert that sane gun owners would not care to have their fellow citizens walking around with grenade launchers, military sniper rifles loaded with depleted uranium munitions, etc.. Likewise, I presume that responsible gun owners would be outraged if guns were knowingly sold to people with a violent history and/or severe mental health issues. Therefore we start the conversation with the idea that ones "second amendment rights" are not absolute. My point is, even the most fervent sane gun owner favors some restriction. With that as our starting point, if it comes down to a choice between gun owners "rights" and reasonable legislation that may save the lives of innocent people, my choice is clear.
Furthermore, is it my considered opinion that caring reasonable gun owners should be the ones at the point of this spear. The failure of responsible gun owners to stand for thoughtfully considered regulation would only serve to illustrate to the rabid anti-gun people that they are correct in their harshest assessments.
Click this Link Regarding firearms in the home
I respect thoughtful responsible gun owners in general and responsible hunters specifically. However, I am comfortable to assert that sane gun owners would not care to have their fellow citizens walking around with grenade launchers, military sniper rifles loaded with depleted uranium munitions, etc.. Likewise, I presume that responsible gun owners would be outraged if guns were knowingly sold to people with a violent history and/or severe mental health issues. Therefore we start the conversation with the idea that ones "second amendment rights" are not absolute. My point is, even the most fervent sane gun owner favors some restriction. With that as our starting point, if it comes down to a choice between gun owners "rights" and reasonable legislation that may save the lives of innocent people, my choice is clear.
Furthermore, is it my considered opinion that caring reasonable gun owners should be the ones at the point of this spear. The failure of responsible gun owners to stand for thoughtfully considered regulation would only serve to illustrate to the rabid anti-gun people that they are correct in their harshest assessments.
Click this Link Regarding firearms in the home
3 comments:
Seems we're blogging on the same issue today. I agree with your post. Some restriction seems obviously necessary to me--the gun show loophole being the most glaring. My post focuses on how this debate itself unfolds since I feel nothing will happen on this or many other political issues until we learn or implement real civil discourse.
Seems we blogged on the same issue today. I agree with your post. Some restrictions seem painfully obvious to me. My post was more focused on the way we "debate" this issue since I think nothing will change until that does :) Perhaps thoughful blogging will change the world or I am delusional haha
In the Unitarian tradition we often speak of "the inherent worth and dignity of every person". Like many truisms, it can be rather more difficult to practice than to recite. But I think it comes down to that. If each person addressed the other with the same patience and respect one would show his most beloved person, the dialogue might be more productive.
Thoughtful writing (blog or otherwise) changes minds. And we are never sure which mind might be changed. Including our own.
Post a Comment