I'm caught somewhere in the middle on the issue of gun ownership. Obviously there is the Constitutional argument in favor of ownership.
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
I think that a lot of gun-owning Americans, these days, tend to attribute an opinion to the framers that, simply, is far too extreme in its
assumptions. All too often the first half of the amendment is completely ignored....you know, the "a well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free State," bit. We no longer live in a society where there are functional militias defending States rights and 'freedom.'
Neither guns, nor society, are the same as they were when the framers created the Constitution and the right to bear arms. Thinking of the time frame
in which the Amendment was written, it was one of political repression by the reigning authorities on the colonies. They were not allowed to have
guns or form their own militias, and the amendments were a response to that oppression. Today, at least I feel, the mentality that a lot of, not
necessarily all, gun-owners follow these days is not one of owning a gun to feed the family and protect the common good, but instead some form of
romantic attachment to a 'cowboy' mentality from the American western advance.
Guns are no longer a symbol of defense from oppression, but, instead, have become a symbol of defiance and aggression, and often a symbol of
oppression itself. How many people defend their posession of guns with the idea that it is for home or personal protection? Many. How many have
actually been in a situation where they have had the opportunity to test their theory? I'd wager, few. In this respect, I believe that guns are
The majority of the civilised, democratic world do not allow, or are highly restrictive of, gun possession. Not Unironically, the rest of the
civilised, democratic world has a significantly lower per-capita rate of crime. Is there a correlation? Yes. Is it a causation? Perhaps.
But, this is where my opinion gets muddled.
I used to be completely against gun ownership. But, as I have grown older and have begun to see a scary change in the political culture of the United
States, I have begun to see the value of gun ownership. Don't get me wrong, my political leanings tend to ally more with leftist socialists than
anything else, but when the Libertarians and Survivalists say "they're(the government) coming to take away your freedom..." I tend to agree and I
tend to agree that there is a good chance that violence, or the threat of violence,(IE revolution(IE terrorism)) may be the only course of action in
order to retain freedom.
Unfortunately, and to add to the muddledness, it seems to me that the individuals who own the guns, and are more likely to gravitate toward violence
to preserve their way of life, are the ones that tend to side with those that I feel would take away my freedom....so, really, its a lose-lose
situation, as far as I can see.
At this stage in my life, I believe in the rational regulation of firearms, rather than the prohibition. I think there should be a need for the
posession of firearms. For instance, My father, brother and uncle are all gun-owners. My father, for a time while we lived in Alaska, did a bit of
hunting, had several guns, but after he stopped hunting, he sold a few of them. My uncle owns several guns, as well as several bows, and is an avid
hunter. I think in their cases, their ownership is rational. They hunt(ed). My brother on the other hand, lives in Miami and owns an assault rifle
and a sniper rifle, which he justifies ownership along the "home invasion" lines...this is not rational, and he should not be allowed to own such
weapons...unfortunately, he's the eact type of gun-owner I fear most...with the "bring 'em on, cowboy" mentality. It is a complicated issue.