Frank Watson: Gun control

Shortly after the awful shooting in Las Vegas, I was talking to a very liberal friend of mine who started the conversation with, “I know that we have very different positions on gun control, but…” I interrupted at that point and said, “I don’t think our positions are that far apart. Where we differ is the means to get guns out of the hands of mass murderers.” Despite my liberal friend’s preconception, I can accept a level of reasonable gun control.

There is no reason for any private citizen to have access to fully automatic weapons, exploding bullets, or forty round magazines.

Most reasonable people agree that guns should not be readily available to citizens who are too mentally impaired to act rationally.

On the other hand, I absolutely refuse to trample the Constitution no matter how just the cause.

There is no ambiguity in 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.” Gun control advocates attack the wording and argue that the right to bear arms is collective rather than individual.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled otherwise.

The second argument is that our founding fathers didn’t intend for ordinary citizens to have unlimited access to weapons.

A quick review of the quotes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington testify otherwise.

Jefferson was especially adamant, “No free man shall ever be barred the use of arms.” Thus, any degree of gun control must be through a constitutional amendment.

My friend, however, believes that an amendment is impossible.

“Amendments are too difficult.

The NRA would block it.” My response is that the Constitution includes provisions for amendments.

Admittedly, the procedure makes it difficult to change our basic law, but it has been applied successfully 27 times, the last as recently as 1992.

If a gun control amendment would never pass, then maybe it shouldn’t.

But if it is truly time to sacrifice some of our rights for increased safety from deranged shooters, then we should get on with it.

There are some very real obstacles.

Many of us fear that any modification to the second amendment would only be the first step toward outlawing all private gun ownership.

Given the history of income tax, Social Security, and medical care, I share the fear.

The government would have to demonstrate trustworthiness that heretofore has been lacking.

The second major challenge is the wording.

How much detail would stand the test of time? How much detail is needed? What is an acceptable magazine size? What is the definition of an assault rifle? What about weapon modifications? The amendment could be as long and detailed as the Washington State fishing regulations.

How do we determine who is a potential mass shooter? Background checks can only be successful if we can measure the minimum level of craziness to be on the disapproved list.

What about the majority of us who are only a little bit crazy? The challenges are foreboding.

But if we are going to do it, we need to do it right.

(Frank Watson is a retired Air Force Colonel and a long time resident of Eastern Washington. He has been a free lance columnist for over 18 years.)