Stoneage Ramblings by John R. Stone

Talk about some kinds of gun control always surface after some horrific act caused by a person with a gun. And most of the that goes nowhere.

Many gun rights supporters see any restriction as a violation of the 2nd Amendment or a start down the slippery slope of regulation. Those concerned about mass shootings want to see those who get guns screened more carefully or the banning of weapons that can do so much damage such as semi-automatic weapons.

 The Second Amendment, in its entirety, reads as follows: “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.” That’s it, all of it.

The Constitution was ratified in 1788, a time when most weapons were single shot musket-style weapons. It was also a time when the United States had just completed winning its war against Britain, which wanted to keep the East Coast of the United States as a colony.

We all remember General George Washington who led the U.S. Army of the time to defeat the British. If you read much about those battles and Washington’s leadership you learn pretty quickly that Washington would not have won that war without the assistance of state militias. Those militias fought and won some key battles that helped drive the British back to their ships.

That, in my opinion at least, is why the Second Amendment exists. Just two years after Independence Day the role of militias was still fresh on everyone’s mind. This new country, the United States, needed to be able to defend itself and be able to count on state militias to help if necessary. Thus the states should not be banning the ownership of weapons.

Times have changed. We now have an Army, an Air Force, a Navy, a Marine Corps, Space Force and Coast Guard. All are well armed. I’m not sure any state still has a militia.

I’m not opposed to gun ownership and never have been. But it is clear to me that some people shouldn’t have guns.

We need to do something to prevent some people from having guns, those who clearly endanger the public through gun ownership. People like the young man who killed 19 students and two teachers at a Texas high school. Or the person who killed 10 people in Buffalo, NY. Or the gang bangers running around North Minneapolis.

People want to blame mental illness. That may well be an underlying cause. But so are people with no respect for the law or their fellow citizens.

Let’s face it, most gun ownership proposals won’t affect 90-95 percent of current gun owners. Why? Because most of them are law abiding people who respect others and also respect the power of the weapons they own.

I think the biggest argument against more restrictions is the slippery slope argument, take a way a little now and pretty soon that little becomes a lot.

So I would favor background checks and red flag laws to start along with closing some loopholes like gun show sales.

As for schools? Proposals to turn them into reverse prisons with armed guards outside to keep the bad guys out would seem to be far more traumatic than having students wearing masks to slow the spread of COVID-19. Plus its not cheap. And arming teachers is a step way too far.

Just over 45,000 people died from gunshots last year. Just over 24,000 took their own lives. Just over 19,000 were murdered. And the numbers are increasing. To me that seems like a problem.

Let’s figure out how to identify those who should not own guns and have a fair process for removing those guns or preventing purchases by those people. If someone is not allowed to own a gun by mistake that is correctable. If a person who shouldn’t have a gun gets one and kills someone, that’s not correctable.