Back to the Old West

A recent shooting in my town that left 3 people dead has brought about many issues. For example: it has been suggested that if more people "strapped guns on their sides" that this tragedy could have been averted or at least the perpetrator stopped (as of this writing he is still at large). What disturbs me most about this suggestion is that it came from a police officer. Of all professions I would think a law enforcement officer would want to keep as many guns off the street as possible. He made a pretty convincing argument but the idea still scares the hell out of me.



I have considered getting a gun to protect my family. I live in a very rural county and if someone broke into my house while my wife were home alone she currently has no protection other then our 2 large, vocal dogs. The Sheriff's office is only a phone call away but the nearest Deputy might be quite far away. What would happen if really hard times hit and we have any kind of societal breakdown? What I mean by this is: suppose fuel prices skyrocket again (greedy oil companies and evil Arabs) and the grocery store shelves start getting bare. Electrical service becomes intermittent. Suppose I saw this coming and stored a year's supply of food essentials, fuel and water on my land. Next thing you know, my neighbor wants some. He comes over with his hand gun to appropriate some of my stores and I repel him with my shotgun. So he returns with a couple buddies and an assault rifle or two. OK, where does this end? Someone ends up dead. Do we really want to return to the day when he who carries the biggest gun wins all the gold? I know it is an extreme example but it could come about.





What really frightens me is that I am a pacifist, yet I am considering getting a gun. Next thing you know I will want to carry it around with me. I have had lots of training as a martial artist and tournament fighter; however, every time I began a fight the adrenalin rush was almost too much for me to control. I think that if I were in such a tense situation as having someone shooting a gun around that if I drew a weapon I'd be shaking so much I might shoot anything or anybody. I am having trouble getting past the idea that when eventually most people are walking around armed, that every argument would end up with a gun being involved. I've got an employee that I know loves guns and has a carry permit. What if I have to terminate this person someday? Should I keep a gun in my desk to protect myself? I wonder how to keep guns out of the hands of people that have no business handling them. I knew a guy who was a University Police Officer and was so paranoid he should never have been allowed to own a gun. Neither of these people are criminals but I shudder to think of what might happen if either finds a bottle of SCOPE in his mailbox someday.

I wonder if it would be much of a deterrent for criminals if more people were armed? A sign outside the door that says "I own a gun and I'm not afraid to use it" might be just as detrimental. I suppose it depends upon the type crime. A crime of opportunity is more likely to be second thought then a crime of passion.



I guess that a perfect world only the Police and the criminals would have guns and there would be enough police around to protect us all.





stw

Thoughts on the Second Amendment

I admit right off that I am not much of a gun person. Not that I have anything against them or people who feel very strongly about them but my feeling is this: guns are made to kill or injure creatures; the Zen part of me doesn't want to kill or cause pain to anyone or anything (however, mosquitoes, ticks, black widows, fire ants, and pesky flies are exceptions). I do realize that if someone broke into my house and threatened my family I'd shoot them. I don't think I would try to kill them but the blast from a 12 gauge might stop an intruder and not kill them.

So #2 in the Bill of Rights says that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There are tons of things written about what exactly this means. The Supreme Court has been kept busy across the years interpreting this one. I think James Madison probably didn't seem so vague in his day (in the middle of a revolution and all) but it makes sense that it be written vaguely for the future. I doubt Madison could envision some of the weapons available today. So he left us with a line that we would have to interpret over and over again as the times dictated. I see the Constitution in the same way I see the Holy Bible: No matter how it is interpreted the main points are pretty hard to miss. Madison definitely wanted us to have the right to own guns.

Clearly........you can't stop Americans from owning guns. What about crazy Americans? The first part of right #2 says that a "well regulated militia" is necessary. This is justification for our ability to have guns. The "well regulated" part implies that some limits must be in place. This is why it is certainly not unconstitutional to take guns away from minors, crazy people and people who have demonstrated an inability to regulate themselves (by obeying the law).

If you want to own a shotgun or handgun for your own protection. It is your right. But owning a basement full of AK-47s or parking a tank in your front yard does not make you part of any regulated militia. Why would any law abiding citizen need to have these types of weapons?