I have been a gun enthusiast all of my life, mostly because guns were a way of life as I grew up here in Tucson. My friends all had guns and we used them for recreation and competition, but mostly we hunted with them. Over the decades I, as most of you, have witnessed or heard of every obscene incident involving the outcome of bad people using firearms to further their goals or to further their fervors. And, as the decades passed, we have seen literally hundreds of laws enacted in an effort to prevent the carnage that continues to persist. Most recently our President, Barack Obama, in an Opinion published in the Arizona Daily Star on Sunday, March 13, 2011 spoke out on the need to find a common ground on gun reform.
I began to read this article with apprehension; actually I was on the verge of rage just reading the headline, but as I got through the first paragraph I began to lighten up. However, as I started the fourth paragraph I could sense the onset of my original fears. Onward through the the first column, then the second and into the third I knew just where we were headed. MORE GUN CONTROL laws.
However, as I started through the fourth column I sensed that this might be different and as I continued I found myself empathizing with what was being said. Yes, I could support enforcement of the existing laws if that would help. Most responsible gun owners have said all along that it was poor enforcement, or worse, the lack of enforcement that was the primary culprit.
I read the article completely, twice I might say. Then, on the third time through, I began to read the article with my normally jaundiced view of “big government” gun control. Actually, my jaundiced view goes to big government anything, but you already know that.
I think I can understand the use of the words faster and nimbler, as well as the intent of the terminology “instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent” when applied together in a sentence. And, I do have some concerns about the wording on rewarding states that provide the best data? Does that mean that states that can come up with laws that somehow outlaw guns, will be financially rewarded by the federal government? Certainly better minds than mine can put a better twist on this than I can so we will just have to wait and see where this goes, if anywhere. From my perspective, it is a reasonable request by the President and should be responded to accordingly.
Now, here we are today, Tuesday, March 15, 2011. I note that on the front page of the Red Star(oops, a Freudian slip) there is an Associated Press item chastising President Obama for sidestepping sensitive gun issues. I read, reread, then read the article a third time. Each time with greater credulity than the time before. What was coming to fruition was exactly what the President had said was not happening, which was that “Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain.” But one could assume that the “free liberal press” is not an “American” in this context, could one not?
I noted that Wayne LaPierre, the NRA spokesman, suggests that the dialogue should focus more on putting bad guys in jail than on enforcing existing laws. Well Wayne, if that is the best you can do you will probably lose my support. Hopefully you can provide more substance than abuse to this issue. That is what we pay you to do. Well that’s not correct, dues actually pay you .
So what is the point of this article? I don’t really know. I guess that I just got caught up in the moment and said to myself: “Self, it seems to me that this is a case of, You are damned if you do and you will be damned if you don’t”.
I for one am in favor of finding some common ground on this issue, how about the rest of you?
Just a small reminder.
In Libya today there are freedom loving people that without the availability to possess firearms would still be under the oppressive control of Muammar Gaddafi, a tyrant far more worse than was King George III.
No comments:
Post a Comment