There is an elephant in the room that Congress and the president know they must deal with before any meaningful gun-control legislation is possible, but so far they're not talking about it.
The problem involves civilian ownership of paramilitary weapons, such as the ones that were used to commit the Newtown horror. Should we outlaw civilian ownership of those guns and require their owners to surrender them to the government?
The obvious answer would seem to be yes, but if we do that, don't expect that legion of citizens who say we'll have to pry their guns out of their cold, dead hands to play nice and turn in their weapons. They will not! They will claim that the Second Amendment gives them the unqualified right to own guns, and they will defend that right to the death. We'll have an insurrection on our hands.
But if we grandfather in ownership of those weapons, the law will accomplish nothing. The guns would still be out there for at least another hundred years. And we would have destroyed any possibility of having any meaningful gun-control legislation passed into law.
Bottom line: Our only two options appear to be (1) outlaw private ownership of such weapons and invite a revolution, or (2) pass feel-good legislation that won't accomplish anything important.
I don't know of another option, but there has to be one. Maybe some sort of a compromise is possible.
If someone has an idea, I'm sure the folks in Washington would love to hear it.
-Skip
No comments:
Post a Comment