The Spectator
founded 2004 by ron cruger
A place for intelligent writers
A place for intelligent readers
 by Laramie Boyd
Your comments about this column are welcome ~ e-mail Laramie at
2018 Spectator Ron - The Spectator All Rights Reserved
       Let's see now. Seems there's a lot of talk about putting a ban on some guns, or parts that fit on guns, or somehow putting certain restrictions on guns so that there will be no more, or at least less, shootings and killing of people in schools or in any other public or private place. Without a doubt there is some confusion as to who wants to ban what and whether or not any ban will stop or reduce the killings of innocent people anyway.
       The question always comes up, when there is a markedly different law proposed, as to whether it is a political ploy to garner votes which would not actually result in the stated goal of the law. In other words will any restriction in the ownership or possession of guns stop the killings, or at least a respectable number of them that can be attributed to a new gun law? And if guns or any part of guns are outlawed, will the guns be taken away from the "bad guys" as well as the "good guys". And of course the latter don't use the guns for killing people? How large would the black market for guns turn out to be I wonder? It didn't work for liquor, it just resulted in more lawbreaking. And, how will the idea go over that "guns don't kill people, people kill people", as in "cars kill people, people don't"? And they don't outlaw cars. Will those slogans, used by supposed supporters of the 2nd Amendment, eventually have any bearing on the issue? An important point to recall is that those responsible for the recent rash of shootings and killings were, prior to their rampage, apparently citizens who would have qualified for the purchase of arms. They were not all law-breakers known for violent, irresponsible activities.
       A basic question covering all aspects of any sort of government backed gun control is, what does the 2nd Amendment mean by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms?" The answer to that question, realistically, would depend on the political party in power when the issue of gun control raised its head, again. Remember that it is the government that doles out "rights". They define it! And what is meant by "arms?" The National Rifle Association, gun manufacturers, and legitimate game hunters and target practice clubs across the country would have a different viewpoint than other lobbying groups and vote-seeking politicians who favor gun control.
       What then should the conditions be that prospective gun purchasers must meet to qualify for a gun, and what is the cutoff number for the number of bullets a weapon can fire per minute or second or whatever that would disqualify a firearm to be either manufactured or sold or owned? And would the police and government security personnel be exempt from any restrictions, such that government agencies and the armed forces would be the only sources of rapid and deadly firepower, other than the criminal element that will always find a way to obtain weapons? Is that a thought that would help you sleep better at night, as that's what transpired in Nazi Germany prior to and during World War II.
       Somehow my view on gun control centers around the question of who would most likely be affected by any enforcement of further gun control measures and would such measures really eliminate shootings. There are restrictions in place now. Number 1, would it be the vast majority of law breakers who seem to use guns at will in robberies and other gang activity, that do not register or account for their weapons, and would ignore any other gun laws as they do all laws? Think again. Or number 2, would it be the peaceful citizen who sees gun ownership as a way to protect family and home and to be used for occasional target practice shooting and legal hunting? The answer to that question needs to be thoroughly thought out and acted on. I know what I believe and it's a no-brainer.
       I wonder if any reasonable person believes that the Congress of the United States, with current tales of sexual harassment up and down their halls out of control, and so far nothing being done about it and probably nothing will be done, will enact any meaningful bi-partisan approaches to gun control? How could they view enforcement as essential to any meaningful laws, as they won't enforce improper behavior staring them in the face in Washington D.C.? Is it even slightly necessary to say it again? The main agenda of our elected representatives is to get re-elected. Nothing stands in the way of that goal. Say anything, do anything, or do nothing, it's all the same. Get the vote. Until that mind set changes, very little else will.