We’re desperately sick and refuse to admit it. We’re hemorrhaging yet mask obvious urgency with trite politically motivated talking points. It’s wrong. It’s criminally negligent. It’s also dishonest and manipulative. But it’s fixable if we’re willing to face intellectual honesty.
I’m writing this from the perspective of being an avid shooting sports enthusiast and gun owner. I “identify” as a fiscally responsible conservative Libertarian, disenfranchised by the two mainstream political parties. I also worked in the firearms industry for several years, working closely with law enforcement, the state’s crime labs, the Federal government, and gun manufacturers.
For years I have recognized obvious flaws in gun ownership rights afforded under the Second Amendment. Certainly no fault of our forefathers. They couldn’t possibly have foreseen how the dynamic of violent gangs, drug addiction, and the explosion of mental illness would affect the intent of the rights of lawful gun ownership.
I also understand that the intent of the Second Amendment is not to protect American citizens from marauding thugs but rather to give an armed citizenry the means to thwart a corrupt government and absolute power. The American Revolution would not have happened had there been gun control in Colonial America. We’d be still speaking the queen’s english and be eating tea and crumpets and something called “meat pies.”
An armed citizenry terrifies politicians. All of them. It’s why gun control through a Constitutional amendment has been an ideological goal – the golden fleece of political trophies – and why there has been vehement opposition from lawful gun owners, typically supported by Republican politicians. But once again, gun legislation has become the all-or-nothing hill conservatives have chosen to die on.
If lawful citizens are to retain our gun rights under the protection of the Second Amendment we must be honest about current gun regulations and the ability to purchase and own firearms. There are weaknesses in the firearms purchasing process that are simply too loose to be effective.
As lawful gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment we must forward reasonable and responsible legislation to reinforce our Constitutional right. If we continue to hide behind its seemingly untouchable shield we will lose our opportunity to advance thoughtful and effective corrective measures. As a consequence, a Constitutional amendment driven by frustration and desperation will result in almost certain prohibition.
This is why.
We should all be able to agree that not everyone should own a firearm. It’s more than a Constitutional right, it’s a privilege. And with that freedom comes conscious responsibility and diligence.
The political right has dug their heels in with horse-blinder obstinance to any suggestion for practical and reasonable reform. In their defense, conservatives have held a position of defense against misstated liberal talking points. Many of the ideas forwarded by proponents of gun reform are indeed current laws “on the books,” as repeated by conservatives. But because it’s an emotional and divisive issue, both sides have refused to acknowledge the merits of reasonable discussion. From obstinance comes anger and half-truths.
I have had several conversations with conservatives – including law enforcement personnel – who believe that reform is necessary but are concerned with immediate overreach by the left; that is to say, unreasonable legislation if not outright prohibition. “ONCE THE CAMEL GETS ITS NOSE IN THE TENT!…” The concern of lawful gun owners is palpable. President Biden and his administration campaigned on the issue of gun control and amending the Second Amendment to achieve that goal. That fear has given rise to intellectual dishonesty and panic- buying of guns and ammunition.
Tucker Carlson of Fox News recently spoke of the Highland Park mass shooting in his opening monologue. Tucker is the last of the newscasters that I can watch because he is fair and logical, calling out missteps from both conservative and liberal politicians. But he said something that struck me as manipulative and dishonest regarding the rash of mass shootings. He said that shooting events using semi-automatic rifles like the AR15 are a small fraction of the overall “mass shootings” in America.
While statistically accurate, Tucker’s statement was intellectually dishonest because he combined all of the shootings across the nation’s urban war zones into the bucket of mass casualty events. If we are to be honest and seek a solution, we must be willing to separate spray-and-pray drive-by shootings perpetrated by black inner city gang violence and that done by methodical young, white, angry loners who execute gamer-fantasy military operations against soft targets.
One of the most obvious variables is the choice of weapon. Unlike inner city black-on-black violence, mass shootings like that at the Highland Park parade were carried out with an AR15.
I have had extensive firearms training and attended an AR15 school where we were trained to sweep buildings, engaging multiple targets while moving and from positions of concealment. The AR15 weapon platform is a lightweight, accurate, high power, high capacity weapon designed to simultaneously engage multiple targets with efficient lethality. Low recoil allows for rapid target acquisition and fast drop-and-change thirty-round magazine exchange. To deny the very characteristics of the AR15 that make it fun to target shoot as a sporting firearm is simply dishonest. The AR15 is the semi-automatic “sporter” version of the military’s M16.
M16
AR15
Guns are weapons of convenience – the great equalizer – affording a frail hundred pound individual the means to defend against a physically superior adversary. All firearms are capable of and designed for killing, with some better designed for killing efficiency. To deny these most basic facts is intellectually dishonest and will ultimately lead to the loss of lawful gun ownership rights with the inevitable spectre of future mass shootings.
But the AR15 is just a gun. It’s not a magical weapon of death made in Middle-earth by white Republicans in black helicopter factories. Nor is it an automatic weapon, i.e. a “machine gun.” Recent news reports by CNN and President Biden have been embarrassingly ignorant if not intentionally deceptive. I watched the president read (poorly) that, “you can’t hunt with an AR15” and that “you couldn’t eat a deer killed with an AR15.” As if the .223 (5.56mm) caliber has magical properties like a Star Trek phaser that turn its target to unrecognizable dust.
I know two women that have hunted with AR15’s and legally harvested several whitetail deer. In my opinion it’s an inferior hunting platform, having only low firearm weight and reduced recoil as an advantage over traditional hunting calibers.
The AR15 remains the go-to firearm the left uses to forward its argument for gun control; that is to say, an “assault weapon” ban. But it’s the left’s gauzy deceptive narrative that forces advocates of the Second Amendment to dig their heels in and push back. The purposeful use of the term “assault weapon” (like overplayed trigger-words such as “misogynist, institutional racism, microaggression, and privilege”) are deployed in nearly every gun argument to evoke fear, anger, and sense of blatant immorality.
It’s not so much the use of the term as it is the deceptive slide from an outright reference to the AR15, morphing to the generality of the necessity for an “assault weapon” ban. What is an assault weapon and who will be allowed to say what guns fall into that class of firearms? Or are all guns assault weapons?
Merriam Webster defines assault weapon as “any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge, designed for individual use.” The definition of assault is “to make a physical attack on.” Given all firearm’s ability to kill, wouldn’t that make every gun an assault weapon by definition? But the left uses the word “assault” in “assault weapon” to imply intent rather than functionality.”
This is why advocates for the Second Amendment see any gun legislation as THE slippery slope toward gun control. Under the deceptive liberal narrative, an assault weapon ban could include any semi-automatic (magazine or tube-fed) firearm, including several shotgun, sporting rifle, and handgun designs (including revolvers) resulting in prohibition.
There are immediate steps that Second Amendment supporters could do proactively to acknowledge that change is needed and while doing so, regain control of the narrative. Bipartisan support to fix a broken mechanism is not failure, nor is it allowing the proverbial camel to “get his nose in the tent.” It’s simple honesty and necessary.
There has been tremendous pushback on the current system of national background checks for the purchase of firearms. Conservatives have scoffed, saying that background checks are already “on the books.” Liberals pretend that background checks don’t occur and that purchasing a firearm (even a “FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUN”) is as simple as going to Guns-R-Us with a fistful of cash. In truth, the background check system is woefully ineffective.
The process begins with a firearms purchaser filling out a Form 4473 requiring; name, address, birth city and state, race, questions about US citizenship, and a series of required yes/no answers (relying on the honor system) about drug use, domestic abuse, and other legal infractions. The process is absurdly quick. It takes longer to get a prescription from the pharmacy.
I am not for giving the Federal Government any more control than necessary, however background checks are one area for which I would make an exception. Currently queries into the mental health of gun purchasers is not allowed because of health privacy (HIPPA) regulations. The system relies on the honor system in the purchase transfer form asking, “Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?” It’s apparent that completion of Form 4473 is designed to limit the liability of the seller rather than to vette a gun buyer.
Clearly a deeper look into a purchaser’s background would require additional time. Walking out of a gun store with a new firearm on the date of purchase would end. The delay would be an acceptable cost for an additional layer of public safety. I have purchased several firearms and have never thought that I must have it immediately. Costs associated with enhanced background checks would be minimal and could be rolled into the background check fee.
As a rule-follower who believes that we cannot have freedom without self-discipline, I would be willing to allow a deeper dive into my background as a gun purchaser, including mental health. The Highland Park murderer, like the mass killers before him, had a series of psychological red flags that should have precluded gun ownership. The system relied only on the Form 4473 honor system and a cursory database check to determine if he was “in the system.”
In truth, the existing Red Flag Law has proven to be ineffective because of privacy issues. Law enforcement agencies appear reluctant to respond to reports of concern. Twice in my professional career I’ve contacted authorities concerning the welfare of gun owners that have threatened harm to themselves or others. I was summarily dismissed both times because I was not a family member and told that there was nothing they could do “until something happens.” In the first haunting case, a friend shot himself in the head several hours after I had reached out for help under Red Flag.
Red Flag must be allowed to work with no fear of reprisal. In addition, there must be protections and severe penalties in place to prevent misuse. An angry ex or vindictive coworker could create aggravation that would be difficult to unravel and ultimately result in unwarranted loss of gun ownership.
Other practical measures that could be forwarded immediately to demonstrate a real desire for change on the part gun proponents would be to revamp the Federal Firearms License holder policies. First and foremost, all firearms transfers should occur by reputable brick and mortar establishments, that is to say “storefront” license holders. Gun sales/transfers between family members, friends, coworkers, and acquaintances should not be allowed, including gun sales by non-FFL holders and those at gun shows and like events.
The gun show loophole has to be shut down. It makes legitimate gun owners and sellers look bad. Further, only brick and mortar establishments (that is to say retail outlets) should be licensed FFL holders. I have known several private citizen FFL holders that have acquired a license to buy and sell guns to friends and acquaintances as their hobby side job. In all cases their record keeping was beyond loose and sloppy. There is simply no reason to have more Federal Firearms licensees than taverns in the United States.
Solutions to all problems begin with a willingness to recognize that a problem exists and to face uncomfortable truth. Unfortunately, misstatements, intellectual dishonesty, and ignorance have stalled necessary gun legislation while American citizens fall to political stalemate.