Saturday, December 29, 2012

On the wrong side of history

The U.S.'s major gun lobby, the National Rifle Association, has taken a militant stand in the current debate over gun control. Since the senseless killing of 20 six and seven-year-olds and six of their teachers in Connecticut, the NRA has doubled down with a call for more, not fewer, guns. I firmly believe they're on the wrong side of history this time.


  1. One can't help thinking that if, instead of immediately after a war of independence, the founding fathers had sat down to consider the constitution in the aftermath of the senseless shooting of their children and grandchildren, then they might have reached different conclusions.

  2. Although I am not sure where I stand on this issue yet, I don't think it is fair to compare the world of the 1780's with what is going on today. Guns were much more needed in those days than they are now.
    The problem with this issue is placing good people who have guns in conversations about those that do these evil things.
    And as is always the problem with these after the fact debates,we t end to want to rush a solution. Since our country does like to have sensible debates before these things happen, we tend to rush into maybe unwise solutions (our recent wars come to mind).
    I do agree we need laws that control the types of guns available to people, but why aren't the gun makes held just as responsible.
    We now have angry people debating with defensive people and only a rushed solution will come of it.

    1. You raise some good points, John. I have no argument with hunters, or those who truly need personal protection, although I think the latter has been oversold by fear mongers. And, yes, the manufacturers need to act responsibly, as well. Their funding of the NRA allows it to exert far more influence than is warranted by its size. My main argument is that we have way too many guns in circulation, and too many guns that have no purpose other than for killing people. When there are that many guns out there it's inevitable that some will fall into the hands of those who lack the mental, emotional, or moral ability to use them appropriately. As for the Second Amendment argument, are they really seriously thinking that "militias" armed with these weapons can effectively challenge a trained, modern army? Is the U.S. to become a clone of the Middle East?