Sensible Gun Ownership

Here in Massachusetts we have the most restrictive gun laws in the US.  Our gun deaths per year are among the lowest in the nation.  Opponents to gun control do not view this as a valid correlation, yet these same folks will readily cite "gun-friendly" statistical measures when it suits them.  (I heard one gun enthusiast declare that recent mass shootings almost always occur in "gun free zones.") 

I do not think of myself as "anti-gun".  In fact, I like guns.  Like most young teens, I got a kick out of shooting cans or bottles with an air rifle shooting BB's or pellets.  Several times in my life, I have legally had my hands on a weapon that shoots real bullets.    When I was in the Air Force, we had to learn how to shoot an M-1 carbine well enough to hit a target at 500 paces.  

Some of my most favorite movie heroes are tough guys who are really good with guns.  Dirty Harry, Quigley Down Under (Tom Sellick), who shot guys a mile away with his long rifle. 
  

The Second Amendment

"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."  - Bill of Rights

People who reject any form of government regulation regarding gun ownership interpret the wording of this bill literally.  They say that the founding fathers were fearful of government over-reach.  An armed populace was the counter balance to tyranny.  It is a fundamental right of every citizen to own and carry a gun.  Period.

The wording of the second amendment, (and many other parts of the Constitution) made perfect sense in 1791, but cannot be taken literally in 2013.  It seems absurd to expect the Constitution to anticipate modern technology.

The Constitution is mute on the subject of automotive rights.  There is no amendment stating specifically that the government has the power to regulate who can and cannot drive.   Clearly, the founding fathers were not sufficiently perspicacious as to anticipate the proliferation of crazy motorists speeding down highways.   

 In 1790, the intent of the second amendment was to ensure  the ability of citizens to take up arms against a tyrannical ruler.  A validation of the revolutionary principles that created the free states.  

Today, the word militia is usually applied to groups of domestic terrorists.   The literal wording of the second amendment does not qualify which "arms" can be legally infringed. Yet, the government has sensibly outlawed automatic weapons, tanks and rocket launchers, bombs, grenades, mortars and flamethrowers.  Would the founding fathers be shocked to learn that people's rights to possess these weapons of human destruction had been infringed?  I think not.

Standing one's ground

I support the fundamental right of an individual to defend his home and property.  I have no problem with the "Stand your ground" laws that have been enacted in some states.  Why should victims be required to run away, rather than shoot the assailant who has entered uninvited through the door?  I think the laws defining the legitimate use of lethal force should be changed to favor the intended victim rather than protecting the bad guys. 

This right does not extend universally to public places where innocent bystanders are at risk.  We don't need a bunch of well-intentioned vigilantes pulling out weapons at a movie theater to thwart a suspect who may only be wielding a cap pistol.

Hunting

During the 1960's, I spent the better part of 4 years in Cheyenne, Wyoming.  Most of the local civilian residents  owned guns. Much of Wyoming is a big open space, with the Rocky Mountains just to the west.  Virtually everyone hunted and/or fished it was natural to own a gun.  The population was spread out.  Nature - wild and beautiful - was in your backyard.  Game was abundant. If you raised livestock, there were always predators to be dealt with. 

Like target shooting, game hunting was considered a skill challenge, using a bolt or lever-action rifle, double barreled shotgun or even a bow  -- not a slaughter with semi-automatic weapons.  

Being sensible

My take on sensible gun ownership is pretty mainstream. Individual locales should regulate gun ownership as they now do with alcohol.    
Guns are ok for sane honest citizens who like to shoot for sport or need a weapon for self defense.  But no upstanding civilian needs a military style assault weapon or large capacity ammunition clip, or ground to air missiles.