This week? Guns suck...

We are going to have a special week-long feature here, provided I get enough arguments from my readers to sustain it. I am intentionally structuring this to elicit debate, so let me have it. I should warn you that I have thought about this A LOT, and know exactly what it is you are likely to say (and by "you", I mean people who disagree with me, which I expect most of you will, as I know I am in the minority on this. At least according to virtually every national poll ever taken.)

The topic is guns, and writing this stuff is somewhat of a response to last week's shootings in Virginia. I want to make clear that my thoughts on this have not changed an ounce a result of this episode...this is not a "knee-jerk" reaction to a single event.

First, I want to get the emotional part of the argument out of the way:

I hate guns. I hate that people are allowed to own guns. And I hate that so many people do own guns. If I had to pick one single thing that I think the United States gets wrong and the rest of the world gets right, it is our attitude about guns.

There...now that I got that out of the way, we can focus on the rational arguments. To that, I say that the benefits of allowing gun free gun ownership are no longer even remotely comparable to the cost of allowing that free ownership.

There are two problems. The first is that it is WAY too easy to buy a gun. In most places, unless you have already been convicted of a gun-related felony in that state, you can still buy a gun legally. And anyone, regardless of their criminal past, can buy ammunition. Once that gun leaves the store, it is essentially gone...there is no way to track it or regulate it.

The second problem is that there are way too many guns already in circulation, which means that...even if you are one of the virtually NO people who can't buy a gun legally...anyone can get a gun really easily. No one has any idea exactly how many guns there are, who owns them, where they are, and what they are being used for.

So, to start, I will ask why it is that we ignore the second amendment.

"Ignore?" you say? "But surely, you have realized that second amendment is the basis of our right to own guns!!!"

Not quite...what the second amendment says is: "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."

Oftentimes we hear people argue about the intentions of the framer's of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But in this case, there is no need...they went right ahead and wrote their intent right into the document. Worried about the ability of the nation to defend itself, the Framers hoped that a well-armed citizen's Militia would serve as protection against foreign (or other) enemies.

Do I really need to point out that this is maybe a little bit outdated? Seeing as we have determined that Militia's are NOT necessary to the security of the nation (they are basically illegal), why do we still maintain the right to own firearms? So, why is it that the pro-gun lobby constantly chooses to ignore half of it's own personal Bible?

OK...there is the first part...so let me have it...