Dear Opponents & Critics – Some Second Amendment Views
I hate to disappoint my opponent and critics who say I am against the Second Amendment. At no time have I ever stated nor insinuated that I was against the Second Amendment. I believe that it is a right in this country to own a gun. No one can take away the right to OWN guns; however, I am in favor of training and proof of training before anyone can USE a gun. I am making a distinction between owning and using: no one should be able to use a weapon unless they are trained to use it. All gun clubs in the country advocate training and so does the NRA.
My opponent believes the same despite his accusation that our views are different. In an article on his congressional website, “Gun Laws, the NRA and the Democrat Socialist/Globalist Agenda,” dated May 9, 2019, he states, “What I see as a possible solution involves two steps. The first is for the Democrats to turn in ALL of their guns“…. I disregard that statement and the rest of the paragraph as colorful political rhetoric. Then he goes on to state, “The second phase would be to make an NRA membership mandatory for any person that owns or purchased a gun. The proceeds from these memberships could be used for safety courses and greater training materials being distributed to all NRA members. The more educated people are the more lives that would be saved.“
Someone will have to talk to the NRA on how to spend their profits.
Regardless of what my opponent is saying, I am in favor of training. But why should the NRA be the only training provider? Training should be accessible from any certified provider. No one should be forced to join the NRA, or any other private gun club, for training unless they want to – that, my friends, is unconstitutional. And more educated people … well, we better be spending much more money than we are now on education. Where is that money coming from?
EL PASO AND DAYTON SHOOTINGS
On the morning of August 3, 2019, a lone gunman killed 22 people and injured 24 others at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas. A day later another shooting was carried out in Dayton killing 10 and injuring 27. These horrific slaughters were on the news all over the world and filled the papers, network news, and most of the public’s time. The country cried for solutions. But as happens too often, politicians and news anchors cried for solutions while Democrats and Republicans criticized each other while promoting their own solutions.
So what are the solutions? Even the solutions my opponent advocates will not work for everyone (except for the Democrats who handed in ALL their guns). In my opponent’s plan, these crazed murderers could become NRA members, buy guns, be trained, then use the guns to kill innocent people. What the President said made more sense. He asserted that mental illness and internet bigotry is a cause (In my opinion, not the only cause). But the logical outcome of that statement, if it becomes law, would be to restrict those who are mentally ill. Mentally illness is a wide spectrum, and even medical professionals cannot always come to a consensus on identification and deciding how to move forward. Who will decide? Will tens of thousands of paid psychiatrists will be sent out to evaluate gun users? Who pays for this healthcare when our health care is consuming much of our spending at over $3.7 trillion per year? And when a person is diagnosed as being unable to own and use a gun, there will be restrictions to his or her Second Amendment rights. They will probably appeal, and that will take more time.
I am more in favor, as the President said, of more FBI searches on the “dark web” for crazed individuals who mean to do harm to others. Even though I am painfully aware that this may restrict free speech in the 1st Amendment, the “Right” has the same rights to the internet as the “Left.” And if the government – state or federal – finds these hate groups, by virtue of what the President stated, they must have their guns taken away from them. Still, looking for “dark web” sites seems doable and affordable. But determining if millions of people are mentally qualified to use a gun is too expensive for our country.
Finally, should we address the “elephant in the room” and a less costly solution to this problem, restrict the use of military weapons, or at the very least, high capacity magazines? To my critics, I said, “RESTRICT.” We actually have laws that restrict rapid-fire guns. On March 26, 2019, the ATF amended its regulations and classified bump stocks as machine guns, effectively banning them. I certainly feel I need a very good reason to use these weapons and A LOT of training. Restricting them will save lives and limit the casualties caused by rapid-fire rounds.
We must look for and find solutions that work, and that is what I want. I believe that is what the majority of this country wants. I want my opponents to understand my position on the Second Amendment before they make false accusations. False accusations don’t help anyone.