Lie #1 - regarding guns

Conservative lie #1:

“If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.

If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.”

       Where to start? It is apparent that, as usual, this statement uses hyperbole and exaggeration to “make” (miss?) the point. Many liberals are hunters as are many conservatives. The lie here is “all guns.” No “liberal” that I have been able to identify wants all guns banned. The real issue for most liberals (and the great majority of moderates and, in fact of 70% of all Americans) is the number of innocent civilians killed by weapons of a nature that no one truly needs to possess except for actively serving military. Ronald Reagan, the deity for many conservatives, along with Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter, supported bans on assault/automatic weapons. That is two arch conservatives and one liberal with a common opinion re: assault weapons.

          A letter to Congress in May, 1994, reads as follows:

      “To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assault weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime. Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly supports  a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

     The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

     While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford

Jimmy Carter

Ronald Reagan

 

Obviously, the ones out of synch with the mainstream of America here are not the liberals, none of who oppose the sale or possession of hunting rifles or shotguns, but the conservatives (Nugent, Limbaugh, et al) who oppose any restriction on any type of gun ownership. When asked to justify the opposition to assault (and other automatic) weapons bans and background checks, they  mumble meaningless drivel, followed by the words “Second Amendment.”  I have written (blogged, actually) last year on this issue, with numerous citations from Madison, Jefferson  and others regarding the specificity of the wording of the second amendment to the US Constitution regarding the words related to “A well regulated militia.”  The vast horde of NRA members who parrot the incessant babblings of Wayne LaPierre and others are not militia and certainly not well regulated. Background checks are considered reasonable by the majority of Americans questioned in every valid  poll I can find, and no, a poll of NRA members doesn’t count.

                From a purely personal point of view, I also believe it is time for the realization that while Dr/Patient privilege certainly should be sacrosanct in mainstream medical matters, the issue of public safety should trump it when a mental health professional has a disturbed patient who seems even slightly destructive to him or herself and others. It is troublesome to hear after the fact that there were clear cut indicators of mental instability present, but no one but the mental health community knew it, or even worse, as in VaTech, those who were told took no action. I’m not sure how one would implement such a thing, but certainly background checks coupled with a national database would be a place to start. I’m sorry, but many regular hunters in the woods (“I shot at the sound” – yes I’ve been told that by a deer hunter) are dangerous as it is, but paranoid schizophrenics with assault weapons?      

     In summary, if a Conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.  The same is true for liberals, many of whom own guns. In truth, most conservatives and liberals, gun owner or not, actually support assault weapons bans and favor background checks and waiting periods as well as closing the “gun show loophole.” What the vast majority of sentient Americans realize is that too easy access to automatic weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo by persons who truly wish to do harm to others is wrong. We have seen it in Columbine, Aurora, VaTech, Newtown, and the list goes on.

     So whose political stance is more dangerous to the rest of us who chose either to own, or now own guns?  Is it liberals who wish for, not the ban of all guns – that’s a bald faced lie, but reasoned approach to the issue?  The actual number of Americans who would ban all guns is probably about the same as the number of times Michelle Bachmann has spoken truthfully – damned few. The percentage of Americans who would favor banning automatic weapons and the implementation of background checks, waiting periods, and closing the gun show loophole is a clear majority. For anyone, especially a conservative, who in issues of religious observance and citizenship screams loudly about the “rights of the majority” to oppose this reasoned approach, favored by most Americans to guns and gun ownership is ill thought and counter to the “conservative” point of view. But then again, if we expect critical thinking skills from the far right we will always be disappointed, won‘t we?