About guns. Deal with it.

 Guns.

I know, you just reacted. Everyone does. 

Let's get into it, and you can agree or not. 

Do we have too many mass shootings? Of course, any is too many. 

Do a lot of people who should never touch a firearm own them? If you're sane, you answer yes. 

Do we have a Second Amendment that's unique in the world? Yes. And it has been misinterpreted by the Supreme Court and turned into a massive social problem. We have made firearms available to every adult even if they're untrained, irresponsible, near-demented, or simply too stupid to be trusted.   

And the NRA and its allies keep telling us it's not the guns, it's the people using them. That's actually hard to argue with, because inanimate objects aren't capable of determining how they are used. But if we can outlaw lawn darts, why can't we outlaw the Bump Stock, a device that's added to a semi-automatic rifle and effectively turns it into a fully automatic weapon? 

If no other argument exists, there is absolutely no argument that a Bump Stock can be used for hunting. If nothing else, it should be licensed and taxed like a fully automatic weapon.

The point about people being the problem points in a direction too obvious to ignore: take the goddamn guns away from people who shouldn't have them...or prevent them from getting them. 

Some of that we can do, and let's face it, some we can't.  

I'm not anti-gun. I got my first .22 rifle at 14, and I have had firearms ever since then. I was a reserve deputy for 7 years, I have substantial firearms training, and I own more than a dozen firearms. I'm not worried about me, and I'm not worried about people who have owned and handled firearms much of their lives. Those folks didn't worry me as a deputy, and they don't now. 

The key is, once we know people are not trustworthy with firearms, we should act. The NRA says it's not the gun, it's the user - so let's start doing something about the users. 

Of course we need to enforce all our current laws. But we also need to connect ALL firearms databases with law enforcement, and perform legal background checks on every commercial and private transaction. If someone should not have a firearm, it doesn't matter whether they get it from a commercial vendor or a family members; the fact is they shouldn't have it. And if they get it illegally, we often can't prevent that, but we can surely punish them once they get caught.  

And Red Flag laws make perfect sense. Once we know someone is behaving in a way that endangers others, we should rush to take their firearms away. That's not a lifetime event, and were not taking away their constitutional rights. We are protecting the rights of others to life, as well as liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Consider demographics. We have at least three generations of young people who didn't grow up using firearms, and they've been threatened by mass shootings. How do you think they are going to vote? Over time, the clear direction is that firearm legislation will increase and move forward. And the right-wing Supreme Court which ejects any legal reasoning or precedent established after about 1850 isn't going to last forever. 

At the very least, firearms laws are going to change over the next decade or two. And a change to the Second Amendment is likely to happen as well. Its original ambiguous wording is probably going to change during this century; it's not going to make firearms more available, it's going to at least partially close the open door we have now.

So if you're an advocate for ownership of firearms, start thinking about how you can support new laws that add order and reason to limiting firearms ownership and contribute some positive steps going forward. The option is to get steamrolled as society moves along. 

Some questions as thought-starters:

If a having well regulated militia is important to the security of a free state, how about creating a definition of that militia, establishing well-defined training for it, and creating a registration process with documentation showing that people have taken that training - all before they can own a firearm? 

How about defining that militia as something like those "who have had the training and belong to established and legally sanctioned militia groups, including law enforcement, the military and other groups to be defined?" Obviously we need to work out who is in. But that also means it's important to omit the people who should not own firearms. 

And how about NOT selling to or permitting firearms ownership by people with no training and no connection to law enforcement or any registered militia? 

Once we've done all this work, does that mean there won't be mass shootings or individual shootings? Of course not. But we need to make a start, and it has to establish a legal basis for working forward and improving our situation, instead of letting it get worse with each passing year. That's what is happening right now.

I see this coming. I see it as young people grow to voting age and start acting based on what our generations have done to terrorize them with mass shootings and lenient firearms laws. I enjoy target shooting, but I am willing to get training, get licensed, join a legally defined group or otherwise conform to new laws. That's because I want to be part of the solution, and waving the Second Amendment flag with no concessions is NOT leading to a solution.