How best to save ourselves, from ourselves? (v2)

Regrettably, tragedies like the one in Newtown, CT invariably bring us back to the discussion on gun control in America. It seems far easier to criticize gun owners alone, than to reconcile that we might care poorly for our fellow man in times of need or distress.

As someone who has served in our nation's defense in uniform and as a civilian, and is a student of world history with respect to armed conflict, I have long held the belief that an armed society is likely to be a far more polite society (nods to Heinlein). As recent events in Newtown, CT might belie, that notion is probably somewhere between fact and theory largely due to our friends and neighbors who have cajoled, invoked and legislated incredulous levels of political correctness over the past 50 years. And yet, even I am moved to consider that firearm ownership could use some limits.

To be sure, firearm activities have their place among firearm owners, principally around shooting ranges for purposes of training, and responsibly maintaining an owner's proficiency AND safety. Sport hunting activities may have a place as well, although I think we've effectively evolved past the hunter/gatherer stage in our species. Still, I've never understood the notion that firearms were collector's items beyond some purely historical point of view.

And predictably, firearm aficionados regularly trot out the second amendment as a sticking point to equally predictable referendums on gun controls, as almost always arise out of events like these. Of course as Americans, our history is littered with storied accounts of militia warfare dating back to our founding. But with few exceptions, those events were based upon a call to arms by our collective nation in a culture that was seemingly far more respectful of friend (and foe), and of the notions of property and civility.

Sadly, I believe the events in Newtown actually bespeak a larger, more human problem. Gun advocates frequently offer up the worn chestnut, "Guns don't kill, people do." (a truism). And truthfully, in most cases it seems, anyone bent on killing will find and use the most convenient tool to accomplish the task. Guns simply require less effort on the part of an assailant, and are more efficient for the ghoulish task at hand. Especially rifles with high capacity magazines.

Banning weapons of warfare like assault rifles and the ammo and magazines that are used by them would probably go a long way towards reducing the likelihood of a repeat event like the one in Newtown from taking place again anytime soon. But bans on handguns and single action rifles (and the ammo for them, even in the largest magazines; appx. 15 rounds), which are principal in armed protection of persons and property would, I believe, unnecessarily impinge on citizens' second amendment rights.

But not everyone is reacting to these events with emotional outcries against firearms, in toto. As opposed to gun controls, some have offered that the real problem is that our healthcare systems (and to some degree, our society in general) has failed these 'people in distress'. Those people seem to believe that there should be mechanisms to prevent 'some people' from ever owning or accessing a firearm. And while I can't question the wisdom of such a philosophy, I cannot in good conscience recommend supporting any efforts towards that goal.

Unfortunately, any policy, process or mechanism specifically designed to separate someone that is deemed 'in need of mental or emotional assistance' by others, from their firearms will directly threaten the second amendment rights of all people, including those who may themselves not EVER commit an act of violence. No matter how well intentioned such an approach is likely meant to be, it is a poor solution and will face enormous opposition, since any such, even policies and programs built with the best of intentions will be eventually abused by some with ill or careless will about others' freedoms.

Unfortunately, the notion of using law to separate anyone from their constitutional liberties for any reason short of a felony conviction eventually puts all our liberties on the table, and puts our rights in the hands of those with the mendacity to think that they know best. Any policy, process or mechanism designed to deprive any group of people from their rights (including the right to gun ownership / possession), risks being abused by the less than well intentioned. If you doubt that, you need look no further than pro-life advocates of the far right.

Our founders could never have imagined the world we've created from their bold venture. And I'm unsure if they would be moved enough by events of the present to change their original propositions. Absent divine knowledge or temporal clairvoyance, we must cling to the precious tenets they bequeathed us as the shepherds of our future, trusting in their wisdom. And to that end, we must stay the course set for us.

Hopefully, somewhere in the mix between fear and faith lay a willing balance on the subject.