Dave, thanks for your thoughtful comment. I agree with much of what you said.
While some liberals (I’m not a liberal) may want to ban all guns, most people who want changes to gun laws want to see the ownership and use of a gun put on the same basis as ownership and use of an automobile:
- You have to be trained — like you have to be before you can legally drive a car.
- You have to pass a test to show you’re trained — like you have to do to drive a car.
- You have to get a license — like you have to do to drive a car.
- Your gun is registered — just like your a car.
- You can’t get a military-style weapon without special training, need, and testing — like you have to do if you want to drive a bus or 18-wheel truck.
I own a gun and if I lost it, I would buy another one. None of the above rules would prevent me or any normal person like me from owning a gun for self-protection.
The NRA has framed this as a debate between people are pro-gun and anti-gun. That’s a lie in the same way it would be a lie to say that the people who want drivers and cars to licensed and registered are “anti-car.”
The two sides of this issue really are:
- the people who want untrained, unlicensed people to be able to anonymously own unregistered military-style, deadly weapons and
- the people who want only trained, licensed people to be able to own registered self-protection and sporting firearms.
If you talk with the people who want anonymous ownership of unregistered military-style weapons you will quickly learn that their motive is to be able to stockpile unregistered weapons because they think they might be needed to mount an armed uprising against a feared totalitarian federal government.
If you don’t believe me, read the many comments advancing that argument that have been made to my “gun-debate” columns.
— David Grace