Gun Reform…

By Ron Signore

The last few weeks have given us a lot to think about around the ever popular, or unpopular to many, topic of gun control.

Joe Rogan may have had it right when he puts the implication of lunacy in his act on how the constitution had not been updated much from it’s original version. Of course, there have been amendments and repeals of certain laws, transitions from federal to state and the likes, however, for one of the most critically common amendments in our everyday lives, we have done nothing to reflect the progression of time.

The second amendment of the US Constitution in the simplest of explanations allows for the right for one to bear arms. The right-winged gun radicals argue solely on that point, without true understanding of the rest of the article. Paranoia that the government is coming to take our guns keeps them standing up to this concept.

They tend to forget the purpose of the notion is to keep a free state by allowing for a well-armed militia, with the idea that we can protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. Some irony here is present when the fundamental concept of the Democratic party in power currently is to help support the country as a whole, not limited factions of the country’s citizens. In fact, one could very strongly argue that the closest we have come to a tyrannical government was under the Cheeto Man administration where Deadly Donnie did everything he could to piss on the progress and rights of our fellow American’s, especially if they didn’t align loyally with him.

In the reality of the previous scenario, the 2nd Amendment would have been logical to have a militia formed from the left-wing Americans, or anyone with common sense, to rise against the Comrade Orange Tyrant. Furthermore, to that point, the right-wing radicals and Trumpism followers portray a public perception to be so pro military that a militia at this point would be trampling on their own prideful beliefs. But alas, the left is stereotypically on the pacifist side, trying to retain a perception of protesting within the rights one the constitution. So, the militia argument is very muddy to say the least and does not necessarily align with the common state of the world.

So, this circles back to the key tantrum debate of not allowing the government to take our guns or leading to the government leading to regulate gun acquisitions going forward. This is where the issue gets louder in the American public. Are the Democrats trying to control the United States and perform a historically similar path to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? The conspiracy theorists sound the alarms that this is the exact reason the left is pushing for gun regulations.

I hope I am not naïve, and hope I am more realistic in nature than the paranoia spit through the mouths of the conspiracy theorists. This topic gets to center stage after larger scale, mass shooting-like events. The topic gets a rise out of everyone. Would the shooting have happened if the criminal couldn’t legally get their hands on an AR? Do you blame the gun or the shooter in an argument that compares blaming the driver or the car in a drunk driving accident? States like Illinois, specifically in Chicago, have high gun crime statistics, yet gun regulations are extremely tight; so how come the bad guys can get guns, but not the good guys? All sides of the coin can be eye opening when going round and round with this topic.

I am not sure there is a right answer to this. There is clearly a need to address this further on a larger scale and modify the original amendment. We are all going to have different opinions to this, and some will be more stuck in their ways, heels dug deeper than others. For me, it should lay out a way that makes sense to the greater good of the nation. If that means that the government allows the free rights of people to attain firearms, including AR’s, then there should be a process of registration, including a mental exam that could help outline risk of stability in the proposed gun owner and their likelihood to criminally use the firearm. Rigorous testing there, and rigorous training should be mandatory to acquire firearms. A handgun, maybe a little less rigor, because statistically speaking handguns will not be the weapon used in random mass shootings. Crimes with handguns statistically are more intimate or by random circumstance.

People like me rationalize having a handgun and carrying by way of protecting ourselves or loved ones. While that may be a legitimate rationalization, a reasonable reason to have a gun, the truth is that in most instances, a handgun either barely closes the odds of an equal chance at survival or does nothing because having a gun makes no difference if someone has a jump on you; or you are randomly hit in a mass shooting.

Guns are fun. Shooting is fun. Go to a range and do some target practice, it is a blast. Hunting for sport is a whole other world of people and frankly just as fun. But guns are dangerous without the proper training. Access to firearms without some regulation will allow for random accidental tragedies, and a continuance of mentally ill people acting out through mass shootings. No steps will be perfect. Nothing will eliminate unnecessary violence, but maybe we can slow it down just a little. In a perfect world, everything and everyone would be peaceful. That’s not real life. So how do we impact a real problem without impacting the law-abiding citizens?

And round and round we go…

[si-contact-form form=’2′]