Wed. Jun 19th, 2024
by Ken Carman

Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day

 This qualifies as an “unseen” and an “odd angle.” It shouldn’t, but did anyone ever claim we argue issues sensibly?
  Despite all the noise from the left and right I think we’re avoiding an important problem when it comes to guns; we’re regulating, or not, state by state… even locale by locale: like cities, towns. I think, even if we had to worship the Constitution like it’s some biblical oracle handed to us by forefather Gods, it’s pretty clear our forefathers addressed the issue on a national basis. They didn’t say, “But the states can make up their own rules regardless of what the second amendment says, or doesn’t say.”
 Especially with such a big and complex society our forefathers would never have dreamed of, the problem is that handling this state by state, locale by locale, is a lose lose for all sides, and the citizenry. Do we really need so much inconsistency when it comes to a right our forefathers addressed as one of our amendments?
 For those seeking more gun control… how much control can any municipality, or state, actually have if guns are available just across a border or two? On the flip side of the debate: gun rights advocates… do you really support one state’s, or city’s, decision to violate what you believe to be a basic right?
 For both: is your sense of outrage only limited to what’s happening in your neighborhood? Or does it matter to you if the source of the carnage in your neighborhood was from somewhere else?
 The result of the way we regulate this, state by state, came to light just the other day. The governor of New York State has just announced that they plan on starting a data base of those who probably should own guns, one of the main focuses being mental patients. That doesn’t both me all that much: it matters to me more how they plan on enforcing it. That’s the catch. Andrew Cuomo told reporters that if they thought someone who had guns probably shouldn’t due to mental issues, “We will go get them.” Followed up a day later by Ed Schultz basically saying the same thing, only making it sound more like we’ll bust in their door and grab the guns.
 Excuse me? You’re going to start breaking into folks houses on a suspicion? You’re not even going to send someone to talk to them, or use a subpena? You do remember what the Brits did to us, right? Um, something that helped cause a revolution? This is exactly what Alex Jones froths at the mouth about.
 (The frothing commences at at about the 2 minute mark.)
 When it comes to issues like gun control and free speech what’s “local” rarely “stays local.”
 I’m framing this argument so both sides will understand my point…
  Like freedom of speech, this is an argument for the whole nation to have, not a place where states rights means your door is bashed down. You know, like the Brits did to get the guns before the revolution? Let’s flip the argument: your son dies because someone bought a gun just across the border. When it comes to freedom of speech… should we allow one city to put anyone in prison “who dares question the King,” but allow someone in another city to make open threats against the president, or yell fire in a crowded theater? Of course not. No more than we should allow one city to confiscate all guns by the point of a bigger bazooka, and another to allow a firing range for the mentally deranged, armed with armor piercing bullets, to be painted onto the side of every preschool.
 If we’re registering weapons, of what use is registering in one city vs. the rest of the nation, unless of course we’re going to wall everyone in and disallow travel, interstate commerce. Do we frisk everyone, search everything, break down doors when we suspect someone may have mental issues? What kind of society is that? Not “free.”
 I am for a nationwide data base that would let professionals and law enforcement know someone with “issues” of various types might be a danger if they buy a gun. Not going and getting their guns for a crime they haven’t committed yet. But professionals and law enforcement should certainly know someone who goes into uncontrolled fits of rage may be even more of a danger if they now own a gun. Not to confiscate, but to be more watchful.
  To offer the standard cliche’: this is “rocket science.” It’s not as simple as just “creating a database,” and especially not as simple as regulating via a hodge podge, patchwork quilt of regulations. And I am also including pro-gun regulation here.
 I find no more comfort in a town that insists I must carry a gun, than one that says I can’t. Or says people who think I may be threatening them have a right to kill me. Ironically “only have a right to kill” if they have a gun and aren’t a black kid with skittles and soda who feels threatened by someone who has been following them.
 He has a right, not to defend himself, but to die, apparently. You see I think regulating guns locally is problematic in all cases. And it matters less whether you think Stand Your Ground sucks, or the Sullivan Law. Both are local attempts to handle what should be standards set on a national basis so we agree what is infringing, and what is a logical limit, or expanding, of any right.
 And then we have the issue of “well regulated.” Everyone having a gun so they can defeat the government if they come after them is non-nonsensical considering all the government has at their disposal, and certainly not “well regulated,” or even just “regulated.”
 This is too important an issue to leave to the states, or cities. And certainly, whatever we do, allowing the various factions to push their agenda on a more local scale does not protect our rights, or our lives.
 Just the opposite.


Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
©Copyright 2013
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

By Ken Carman

Retired entertainer, provider of educational services, columnist, homebrewer, collie lover, writer of songs, poetry and prose... humorist, mediocre motorcyclist, very bad carpenter, horrid handyman and quirky eccentric deluxe.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x