Re: Tracking guns
I'm not in the least bit guible and, while I am liberal, I wouldn't call myself extremely liberal. Guess what, if keeping a database of rifling marks would work, I would be all for it and, yes, it would be a way of enforcing current laws.
I don't own a gun and don't particularly like them. As far as I'm concerned, I was done with them when I got out of the military. I am also "middle of the road" in regard to gun ownership. I don't happen to believe that the 2nd Amendment is as plainly supportive of individual gun rights as the NRA and its supporters think it is. First of all, there is not one single word in it that says that there is a right to have a gun or a firearm. It says arms - nothing more. It also says not one word about unrestricted ownership of arms. In fact, the stated purpose of giving the right to bear arms is for a "well regulated militia.
So, what does all this mean? In my opinion, what it means more than anything, is that it will be argued back and forth, and ruled on back and forth, until the U.S. ceases to exist, if it ever does. The amendment is so vague that its pretty hard for anyone, on either side of the argument, to make a definitive statement about what the framers intended.
Ultimately, I think some sort of common sense needs to prevail. I think most people would agree that we have a right to defend ourselves as individuals. I think the same folks would also agree that the need to do that is becoming more and more of an issue in a world where school massacres and brazen robberies occur, often involving murder and/or wounding of the victims. I don't like guns, but trust me when I tell you that I could care less if one of you blows some clown that you discover in your home, to kingdom come. In fact, I once had a female friend who did exactly that. I am glad that her assailant ended up dead on her bedroom floor and she survived w/o being raped and murdered.
All of this said, what I hope the pro-gun folks will do is to work with the anti-gun people to find middle ground. Don't give the store away and don't put up with attempts to pass stupid legislation. On the other hand, if something makes sense, support it. At the same time, the "anti-folks" need to stop thinking that a complete ban on gun ownership is the answer - it isn't. As many have said, the crooks will get their hands on them anyway.
My guess is that the justices are going to rule on the DC case in some way that pleases the gun lobby. Whether they will completely overturn the DC handgun law remains to be seen. The current argument seems to be that the DC ban, and others like it, are akin to limitations on free speech. Frankly, I think that is a weak position because there is a heck of a lot more at stake in the case of gun ownership and use. And, although I'm sure an argument would be made that arms and free speech are thing specifically addressed in the amendments, if you remove an ability to restrict a portion of the use and ownership of arms, where do you stop? Do you then say that people can't be made to adhere to speed limits?
Frankly, I think the whole thing is a can of worms that would be better settled with some compromise. With a few reasonable adjustments, the current laws are probably adequate. After some minor tweaking, I would love to see all this energy being directed at going after the crooks and killers instead.
