I've been gone nearly a year from dKos, reading sometimes, but not saying or commenting much. It saddens me that what brings me back is the tragedy in Aurora last night, and what I've seen and heard from friends, in their opinions, postings, etc. One in particular stood out. He's a friend who is a combat medic and someone I respect, but in this case, I wholeheartedly disagree with.
The reasons why are simple. It is the idea that the only thing that will safeguard our rights and liberty in this nation is guns. Ergo, any gun regulations are an infringement upon our Second Amendment rights and will hurt our ability to defend ourselves when the ubiquitous "they" try to take our rights away. Also, that any weapon is dangerous in someone's hands, so it has more to do with the person than the weapons involved.
This entry has grown from my reply to him.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." --Second Amendment, Constitution of the United States of America.
That does not imply, nor has it EVER implied, that we as citizens have the individual right to own military weapons. Yes, any weapon can be dangerous in someone's hands, but their ability to harm greater amounts of people in shorter amounts of time is greatly increased when they are allowed to purchase and use military weaponry. I continue to be disturbed by the belief that we do not have a vested interest as a society in ensuring that professionals be the only people allowed to legally carry and use these sorts of weapons. In 90 seconds, James Holmes killed 12 and injured 59 more people, and those numbers would have not been nearly as high if he had to stick with a handgun and/or a shotgun, which have far less ammunition capacity and rates of fire.
Louie Gohmert, the neanderthal representing a district in Texas, wondered aloud why no one else was armed in the theatre, and why they didn't shoot back. This is another standard right-wing line trotted out whenever one of these shootings happens. Someone comes out and wonders why weren't there more armed people. I wholeheartedly reject that the only way we will be safe is to have more armed people everywhere we go. This guy was dressed in tactical gear and had assault rifles. The average CCW carrier has a handgun. It likely wouldn't have done much in this situation except kill more innocent people. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I don't think I am. What makes us safer is more, better trained police. What makes us safer is patrols by beat cops. "911 policing," as Vincent Cannato observed in The Ungovernable City, led to higher crime rates because officers were being reactive instead of proactive. Bill Bratton has reduced crime in both New York and Los Angeles by being proactive. That's the sort of thing that makes us safe, NOT anyone and everyone walking around with guns.
More to the point, I am tired of seeing people slaughtered in this manner. The NRA will surely do their usual song-and-dance number, and the media will lap it up, and politicians will duck their head and run away from doing anything responsible. It is up to us, the citizenry of this nation, to stand up and say enough. I do not advocate, nor do I doubt anyone would advocate, the removal of the Second Amendment. I do advocate, as should all of us, in an adult manner, the debate over what level of weapons we should be allowed to own. The idea that we need assault weapons to defend ourselves is ludicrous. As Darcy Burner pointed out in her excellent diary earlier, the list of victims is long. That is the immediate threat. The government trying to take all our freedoms and confiscate our guns? Not even close to imminent. Nor woujld me owning an assault rifle change that. They have tanks and rockets. I lose that battle even with an assault rifle. Why is this so hard to grasp?
In truth, though, this nation has existed since 1776 without the government taking our guns or our freedom (not counting things like the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Smith Act, etc.). We are certainly in an ugly period in our history where terrorism and the threat thereof has been used to erode our rights, but that is OUR FAULT as citizens for not fighting it, for not protesting it, for not voting out of office anyone who supports the erosion of those rights.
This needs to be understood by more people: Having an assault rifle is not going to save you, and not being allowed to own one isn't going to take your rights away. Using your power of the ballot to remove those who trample on your rights will save you, or continuing to stick your head in the sand and not participate in the electoral process will cost you.
As Darcy said, let's be adults. And the first step is driving home the point that guns do not defend our freedom domestically. Voting, and voting for the right people, does.