Skip to content

Gun Control Debate For Reasonable People

December 2, 2015

How much more blood needs to be shed in America until policy makers enact gun control measures is not known tonight.  If history is our guide we have not yet reached the point of action from those who are beholden to gun lobby campaign cash.   But there are plenty of people with facts and reason to show the path forward.

The New Yorker has a short column this evening that points in a direction I have long felt to be one that has merit.

Jill Lepore and Adam Gopnik have written about the ongoing debate over gun control. In “Battleground America,” from 2012, Lepore explores the history of America’s relationship with guns: how, she asks, did we get from the idea of a “well-regulated militia” to the notion that “every man can be his own policeman, and every woman hers”? And, earlier this fall, responding to a shooting at Umpqua Community College, Gopnik argued that we have misinterpreted the Constitution. To institute tighter gun control, he writes, “there is no need to amend the Constitution, or to alter the historical understanding of what the Second Amendment meant.” In fact, “if the Founders hadn’t wanted guns to be regulated, and thoroughly, they would not have put the phrase ‘well regulated’ in the amendment.” The Second Amendment is already a gun-control amendment.

6 Comments leave one →
  1. December 3, 2015 5:40 PM


    What was brought up as the idea is to renew our learning about the intent of the framers RE: 2nd amend. Historian Joe Ellis has written extensively about the Founders and has lent his voice to his many years of study, research, and writing. Ellis is not mentioned in the linked post but it is that larger message that was the purpose of my post.

  2. tom permalink
    December 3, 2015 5:10 PM

    Nobody doubts that the Constitution allows for “tighter” gun regulation. I might have misread, but I didn’t see any specific proposal which a “reasonable” person might agree or disagree with.If you read the comments to suggest “confiscation of firearms” or “ban” of private ownership of firearms, then I think it is neither “reasonable” or “realistic” or “constitutional.”

    But the real implied premise behind the rhetoric of the left is always should “shut up.” “Reasonable” implies “open to reason and a change of mind.”

  3. December 3, 2015 12:31 PM

    Nice job cutting and pasting, pk.

    First off, you are proving again to miss the forest due to all the trees. The very idea that these weapons were available for purchase is simply absurd. Background checks in a more precise manner is also something you miss. The morning NPR is reporting the shooters used two assault rifles–a DPMS model and a Smith & Wesson MMP 15. They also had two semi-automatic hand guns, manufactured by llama and Smith & Wesson. It was also noted that the rifles were .223-caliber, compatible with 5.56mm NATO standard, considered powerful enough to pierce a bulletproof vest. I am not sure how you feel about police–your views about the common person in America has been noted with your callous disregard for their value when it comes to gun violence–but how in the world you would allow for our public servants to need to face these types of deadly weapons from those who seek to use guns to only kill and wound is astounding. I think this week when you bless yourself in church you might grab more than one wafer to absolve your sins. Simply shameful.

  4. December 3, 2015 11:59 AM

    Here is what is funny about gun control, California already has a ban on “assault” weapons and high capacity mags. Now we have learned that the two rifles used by gunman Syed Rizwan Farook in Wednesday’s massacre were purchased not by Farook himself, but rather by a friend. But again according to California’s firearms laws, it is “illegal for any person who is not a California licensed firearms dealer (private party) to sell or transfer a firearm to another non-licensed person (private party).” This means that unless, Farook’s friend was an authorized weapons dealer in the state of California or the transfer occurred in another state, then the rifles were acquired illegally. But yes more gun control laws will work because the ones we have now are so successful.

  5. December 3, 2015 10:51 AM

    I noted this idea was for reasonable people.

  6. tom permalink
    December 3, 2015 10:21 AM

    Whenever the left says “debate,” they mean conform or “shut up.” You people have no tolerance for debate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: