[Simon Hunt]

Hello Friends,

I've been away for a while and must be choosing this tormented thread for my first post in ages out of a combination of cussedness, grief, and optimism. I've been reading this thread pretty avidly, and it's gone about like I thought it would. I like it that this community--if such it is--keeps talking even when pissed off at each other...

A few thoughts:

Those of us who would like to see sensible gun control in the US--and I'm one (I can tend anarcho-lefty like Quincy--no offense intended--but on this issue I'm pretty much your standard effete urban coastal liberal...)--really need to reckon with the second amendment. I'm a big US Constitution fan, in general, but the main clause of that amendment says what it says (see Tim's post above...). Unless we were to amend the amendment--there's precedent, and I'd favor the change, but this isn't happening any time soon...--then any gun control needs to operate within that clause.

HOWEVER, the NRA and its supporters need to be made to reckon with the other clause, the weirdly dangling absolute (do I have my grammar right?) one about a "well regulated militia." We may ALL wish the thing had been written differently, but this clause also says what it says, and it pretty clearly indicates that the founding fathers anticipated sensible regulation of the people's rights--and that they did not believe such regulation constituted unconstitutional infringement.

So that's the territory in which the discussion should take place, right? And from where I sit, it's the gun-loving side of the argument that is obstructing the discussion by grandstanding about cold dead fingers and socialism instead of answering the hard questions. To take an example from this thread, I don't have the first freakin' clue about the difference between automatic and semiautomatic. There are lots of distinctions I don't get, but I don't think it makes me an "idiot." I would hope a gun-fan who thought the distinction crucial would educate me on it rather than calling names. But, then, I also thought Obama's brief speech about this awful event was note-perfect (I would, wouldn't I?). His opponents seem to have taken his vague suggestion of renewed discussions of gun control as all-out attack on the constitution.

I do think the idea of a pro-gun anti-NRA organization is an extraordinarily good one. Can I suggest SAFETY: Second Amendment Firearm Enthusiasts who Talk to You (or something like that; it's a first draft). The thing about the muskets is cute, but this is just another issue where the founding fathers can't possibly have imagined the place we find ourselves (abortion, gay marriage, race, etc, etc,), and yet their document must be interpreted in the light of present circumstances. That's a difficult, messy process, and it will take a serious, patient national discussion to make any progress.

There's much still unclear about the awful Connecticut case. It may turn out, for example,that all the weapons involved were scrupulously and legally registered. Leaving aside the question of why an exurban mini-mansion with two residents (one perhaps prone to violent outbursts--another open question...) would require such an arsenal, I hope that, even if they were all legal, this horrible event will nonetheless help us to keep talking...

Here's an analogy that may or may not have any value: there's no constitutional right to own an automobile ("wagon," the framers might've said...), but if there were would anybody contend that our system of regulation constitutes an infringement? We restrict certain vehicles from certain thoroughfares, tax and license vehicles, license drivers after mandated training (and restrict those who violate the law), and require insurance--and yet I don't feel hampered in my ability to own a car. Shouldn't firearms be regulated at least so carefully?