We at TPP have looked at Second Amendment rights early on we are in agreement with Mr. Mason's statement. We like to bring this issue up for discussion when there is no "heat of the moment." Too often the debate springs up after a random nutjob opens fire into a crowd. Tighter gun control laws, or a gun ban, are called for by the left. The right usually counters with stamping it's feet and demanding an absolute right to shoot squirrels with an AK-47. The left appears rational, and the right looks loony. They are both poses, not arguments - soundbites, not policy.

We, as conservatives, really need a better argument than yelling Second Amendment at the top of our lungs. After nearly 100 years of uninterrupted encroachment on the Constitution by the progressive movement, no one really understands the Constitution anymore. Most people have never read it, and most people don't care. It is why they are called sheeple. The progressives have done their worst, and it shows.

If we are to gain any traction in defending Second Amendment rights, we will need to pull a play from the Reagan playbook, and educate people directly. By educate, I mean get the facts out in a way that persuades people that the facts area actually facts, and not just Ted Nugent's opinion. We need to base how we look at gun policy not just in the Second Amendment, but also reach out to the arguments made by the Founders, the tradition of the country, and the facts about gun ownership.

Here's a fact for you. According to NRA estimates there are 64 million legal gun owners in the United States. Well over 99% of them did not use them against another person in the past 24 hours, or 24 years. The problem is not guns in the hands of law abiding Americans. It is guns in the hands of criminals, or mentally disturbed people. We should make that case more.

While the ink was still drying on the signatures applied to the brand new Constitution of 1787, the balancing act over the Second Amendment was already starting. From the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791 to events ripped from today's headlines, access to firearms has been at odds with control of firearms. This has always been framed as a public safety or law & order issue - and from day one has generated substantial heat on both sides.

Here's an inconvenient truth. It is not a law and order issue. Criminals generally use weapons in criminal pursuit. Law abiding people do not. Gun laws do not affect criminal behavior, any more than drunk driving laws cure alcoholism. Laws are like locks, all they really do is to keep honest people honest. Criminals, by definition, ignore the law. Gun laws will never end crime. Law and order has nothing to do with criminal gun use. It is about controlling those guns obtained legally. Law and order is a pose, not a reason.

Public safety is one of those noble terms coined by the progressive movement, and then expanded. The idea that the federal government should be the keeper of all wisdom is obviously not based in reality. Just read a newspaper. While we agree that a citizen has a right to the "safety" defined in the Bill of Rights, we differ on the principle that the federal government knows best, or even has a role in gun policy beyond interstate commerce. By that we mean settling disputes between states over commercial transactions that involve guns crossing state lines, and nothing further.

Another inconvenient truth - no right is absolute. Freedom of speech does not allow you to yell fire in a crowded building. Freedom of religion does not allow you to sacrifice virgins, or have multiple wives. The function of government is to promote responsibility in the use of our rights, so that my exercise of my rights does not infringe on your exercise of your rights.

The Second Amendment was written in the shadow of the Revolution, when an armed population just said "NO'" to the crown. The Founders understood this, and did believe that the best defense against such tyranny forming in the federal government was to leave it's citizens armed. To quote Thomas Jefferson:

With the first hints of a coming Civil War, the makers of war toys got creative. In 1836 Samuel Colt invented the gun that made all men equal - the Colt revolver. In 1848 Winchester came up with the repeating rifle (the first semi-automatic). in 1862 R. J. Gatling took out a patent on what became known as The Gatling Gun, the first machine gun. All of these were created to give a military edge to battles with the Native-Americans, the occasional foreign skirmish, and unfortunately, ourselves.

These were not hunting or defensive weapons, but offensive weapons designed to allow a person of lesser skill to kill more opponents faster. If we fast-forward to the present day, guns have had over a hundred and fifty years to get more deadly, and more efficient. The media tends to hype what gun violence happens. It feeds on the occasional accidental gun tragedy as proof that there are "too many guns".

Of course, gun control legislation is slid out. As pointed out, no law changes criminal behavior, and no law is capable of preventing a tragic accident. Tragedy has an almost criminal talent to outwit our legislators. What avoids gun tragedies is assuring that the owners exercise their Second Amendment rights responsibly.

Common Sense Dictates
So where does the line get drawn? How do we promote responsibility in the rare cases where it is not being practiced? To start with, as stated in the Constitution, and our traditions, no law-abiding citizen should be denied access should he or she wish a gun. A law-abiding citizen, by definition does not pose a threat to society.

On balance, that law abiding citizen has a responsibility to become educated on gun-use, and should be required to pass a proficiency test prior to acquiring the weapon. We require this with regard to other items that present a possible public hazard (automobiles, boats, airplanes, fireworks, explosives, ham radio...). There is reason enough to do so with firearms.

Rather than registering guns, gun owners should be licensed, and categorized with the weapon types that they have passed proficiency in (rifle, shotgun, handgun, etc.). A licensed gun owner should automatically be allowed to purchase any gun that he is licensed for. He (or she) should also be immediately granted a carry permit. The process should be no more difficult than applying for a driver's license, passing the required tests and buying a car.

There should be absolutely no federal law on guns. Any federal law is contradictory to the Second Amendment, and flies in the face of the Founders intent. The requirements for gun ownership should be set at the STATE, not federal level.

If New York wants to put strict qualification laws on the books, it is within it's mandate as a state government.. The Constitution provides that right to the states under the 10th Amendment. So long as a state has a process for a law-abiding citizen to get a gun if desired, they can set the process as they choose. That process can be changed in an election cycle if the people decide they don't like the process. State law can be challenged in state courts. Or move to a state with less restrictions, as has been the case in other areas of people's lives.

Exotic weapons (machine guns and assault-type weapons) present a special circumstance when viewed in the historical context of the Second Amendment. The Founders intent was a defense against tyranny. They should not be banned. A ban would run counter to the Founders vision. However they should not be available to the general public, in much the same way as an Abrams tank is not available to the average driver.  Our suggestion is advanced training in such weaponry to assure proficiency as a condition of purchase. That would start a whole new cottage industry.

As a whole, the previous suggestions give the law abiding citizen a way to be responsible with his right to bear arms. How about the criminal element? Well, there will always be crime committed with the use of a gun. It follows logically that a law-abiding public, proficient in the use of firearms, and granted carry permits, may give the non-career criminal pause. It has been said that an armed society is a polite society. The vast majority of incidents in which a criminal was shot would be ruled self-defense, Logic would dictate that a resulting drop in violent crime would be a result. If the criminal is not sure that a potential victim is armed or not, he is much less likely to attack.

It is time to stop with the guns and poses. It is time to stop defending indefensible positions. The Founders called for a limited government, not a nanny state, and not anarchy.  There is no federal role in the regulation of guns. To paraphrase Mr. Jefferson again, they are our last resort against the feds. That said, the state government has the right to do what it's voters elect to have done, so long as state law is in compliance with the federal Constitution. 14th Amendment balancing with the 10th Amendment. It's how we do things here.

What we suggest here is a responsible policy, not a pose. It is not perfect, but it respects individual liberty, the Second Amendment and the Founders intent. It imposes no more inconvenience that getting your driver's license. It is far less intrusive than the current labyrinth of federal regulations which seek to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on diverse states. It puts the emphasis on responsible gun ownership. It is a start in the right direction. As always, your input is welcome.

RLB