"A single person is not a militia, but a terrorist..."

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Seeing Beyond Assault Rifles

... while the spotlight is on gun policy, we must recognize the uniqueness of American society, and thus the necessarily unique solutions to our problems.

For us, gun control is futile. American murder by firearms from a two-day period in 2010 rivaled Britain's corresponding toll for the entire year of 2011. So few die in Britain at the hands of firearms, not due to gun laws of the current year, but because there has always been gun control. The American discussion of gun control has missed the boat, as we already swim in a sea of gunmetal; 270 million privately owned guns reside within our borders. The tide of gun ownership is rising, as indications from Obama pointing toward a ban on assault rifle sales have led to a nationwide shopping spree for guns and ammunition.

Unlike handgun legislation, these indications may be more than just idle talk, as a national tragedy caused by assault rifles is not a rarity, but an annual occurrence. Recent events have cast a spotlight on laughably loose gun regulation propped up on outdated constitutional language. Viewed from the perspective of its time, as any historical document must, the second amendment was written as insurance against an unforeseeable future in which tyranny may return to America. The basis for democracy -- the people by which it rules -- is the last check against oppression.

However, these words were intended for a 1790s militia, which, forget assault rifles, rarely carried muzzle-loading rifles, almost always clubs. Thus, in order to affect change, like-minded people had to convene, agree, and mobilize together. Today, with high ammo clips, a single person can enjoy the ability to take on the masses, as enabled by a constitutional statement intended for militia. Need for militia protection from tyranny is a ridiculous assertion ignorantly cited in any pro gun argument. A single person is not a militia, but a terrorist, and entertaining the notion of a tyranny in America is an offensive argument, especially to those actually living under the boot of tyranny.

______________________________________

The NRA is currently being bashed for their proposal to solve our gun problem with more guns. Although this ludicrous suggestion is obviously motivated by profit from a group funded by gun manufacturers, at the heart is the right idea: the acceptance of current gun use remaining constant. This means other methods must be explored adjacent to gun laws. Bullet-proof glass and auto-lock doors in schools mirror the NRA's method of stopping violence at the point of attack, and may be coming soon from some glass or lock lobbyist. However, we don't call on drug dealers to solve our drug problem; let's not call on profiteers for regulations.

Gunmen in schools, bulletproof glass, homeschooling, etc., constrict freedom and suggest a military state. These preventative measures indicate we have accepted that evil walks with arms to bear, and we must protect ourselves. Practicing lock down drills during elementary and middle school did not make me feel safe or that the school was prepared, quite the opposite in fact. I propose we nip the problem in the bud. Mental health has still not been explored sufficiently. Besides direct mental health services, removing glory from murder in the news, enhancing state records of the mentally ill, and ending loopholes to bypass NCIS background checks when buying from a private dealers, would all reduce violence among the mentally ill. The NRA thinks only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. I argue that a good guy who cares to listen can have the same effect.

My worry is that we see a complicated problem and point at obvious solutions that chip away at the corners but not the heart of the problem. Assault rifles and mental illness are not the biggest killers in America, even in combination. The deaths making up the majority of firearm homicides are the kind we view as "typical" and have been plaguing our society for decades, with no realistic solution.

Seen repeatedly after national tragedies, aside from the family and friends of murder victims, the rest of society will move on. The status quo will prevail, maybe masked by alterations in the availability of assault rifles or increased attention to the mentally ill, but our trigger-happy culture will remain. If acute murder rates seen in these types of tragedies cease, by some combination of policy measures, will our more chronic gun problem continue without discussion? We are at a critical point: do we treat the most salient symptoms or the disease? We shouldn't be satisfied fixing the loudest and most discussed 2.5 percent of the problem, leaving the other 97.5 percent to remain. I don't support blindly politicizing tragedy, but we cannot waste the discussion it spurs, and this discussion needs to extend beyond assault rifles, to the benefit of those victims and their families drowned out in the massive body count piling up from business as usual in America.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/j-travis-smith/gun-control_b_2396473.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A single person is not a militia, but a terrorist, and entertaining the notion of a tyranny in America is an offensive argument, especially to those actually living under the boot of tyranny.

True words.

[james&olya 1,121]