Gun Control: Truth is, We Already Agree on This One

July 20, 2016  -Steve Hays


What everybody knows is that right now the GOP has the votes to stop any legislation that even remotely resembles gun control or whispers about restrictions or limitations on the free expression of guns.

What doesn’t appear to be correct is the idea that we cannot agree on some form of gun control. Maybe there are some ways.

What everybody also knows is that those who vote the “right” way get compensated in the form of campaign contributions.

A reasonable person is not wrong to believe that when those voting against any and all restrictions receive contributions, and those who vote for restrictions do not get campaign contributions, one act is connected to the other. There’s a conflict of interest.


We all know it’s quid pro quo. You get what you pay for. It’s so true that when you hear someone saying “That’s not how it works,” you have to wonder who is paying them to say it. Who do they work for?


People outside of Congress certainly know this. Do they think we don’t? It’s something most of us agree on.


Estimates say that 80–90% of us agree that some form of registration, some limitation on the idea that -everyone is competent and eligible to own guns, is appropriate.


What we also know is that 40% beats 80% when the 40% have an Honorable in front of their name and somehow still claim to represent The People.


There’s a reason that isn’t totally a bad idea. Our system is designed to keep Congress from rushing to judgment too quickly. The Executive Branch has to agree and it has to be consistent with the Constitution according to the Supreme Court. It’s supposed to be a slow-working system to protect us from the mob. That’s good.


Giving senators longer terms was also supposed to make them consider issues longer and avoid hasty decisions. Money, however, now appears to be another factor that can speed or delay their deliberations.


Even the very conservative late Justice Antonin Scalia, however, said that regulation of gun ownership was compatible with the Second Amendment.


In a court opinion he said, “limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”


More recently, this June in Voisine v. United States, The Supreme Court voted 6–2 to uphold a law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.


We all know that the arguments against no control are not logical. A case doesn’t need to be made that says people in mental institutions can’t buy guns. No need to say that cars can be dangerous and people need to be licensed and demonstrate they can drive them safely.


We agree on that. There is no movement to allow anyone and everyone to drive any speed they want in any lane and any direction they choose. Where in the Constitution does it say we can be arbitrarily controlled like that?


Unless you think that having some rules of the road promotes the general welfare or perhaps ensures domestic tranquility, you have to consider it an unprecedented intrusion.


Basically we have to agree that gun control is not a logical issue, don’t we? It’s illogical that we have no limits. The latest congressional attempts upheld the right of those on the terrorist watch/no fly list to buy guns!


Why not treat gun control like an emotional issue? We are, afterall, dealing with people’s fears and their safety level. That’s emotional. Maybe the belief that it’s not a threat goes hand in hand with supporting unlimited gun availability.


One of our local San Diego Reps seems to be in agreement with both positions. The Most Honorable Rep. Duncan Hunter votes against gun control measures, but recently showed he might understand what happens when emotions and differences get together.


MHR Hunter, who supported Trump early on and is a Trump delegate, said he will not be attending the GOP Convention in Cleveland this month.


“I think it’s going to be mayhem and riots and hooligans and thugs and police forces. And that’s just the actual convention,” Hunter said according to an article in the San Diego Union on June 21.


Isn’t that exactly the experience—and emotion—that is needed to pass some limitation to firearms?


What he didn’t say is that he would use that break to introduce his family to South Chicago.


He knows violence is dangerous and could escalate—in both places—and may get out of control. Wouldn’t knowing that lead many of us on a different path?


Or he could show his faith in his current record and support the idea that those who want to should be allowed to carry guns openly at the convention?


Why not have a gun show next door or in the parking lot? Maybe the vendors could allow people to check them out overnight to get a feel for them before buying?


Delegates would be able to compare notes on their firearms with fellow delegates—on their breaks, of course, not when they are hammering out a platform and in a fiery debate.


Just having a few people with guns wouldn’t be fair though, would it?


If you own a gun in your home state why shouldn’t you be able to carry one at the convention? Rather than invite mass confusion at the airport, why not just provide them? This is, afterall, the way to feel safer? Why deny anyone the ability to feel safer?


And why run away from your principles when formulating an agenda for all America? Wouldn’t everyone at the GOP convention feel safer if they all had guns at their side?


For some, it seems the answer to that is not so obvious. We live in a diverse and often contentious society. Some neighborhoods routinely look like political conventions. Staying home sends the wrong message, doesn’t it?


If you don’t think guns can aggravate and escalate conflict, then why not pass them out in Cleveland? If someone thinks that’s a bad idea, then perhaps they understand and agree with 80% of us/US more than we know.


Isn’t that the time to admit that being surrounded by guns is a fearful way to live—one that many have little choice about—and decline the bonus check?


Have a great month,




Contact Us