Gun control a matter of mistrust

By Ned Andrews

It's finally happening. Many of America's Republican governors, some of the guardians of individual rights, are giving in to the demagoguery of their Democratic opponents and allowing the enactment of gun control measures. They are allowing the Democrats to foist on them the false dichotomy of either taking away guns from all citizens or bringing about "another Littleton." What Democrats don't realize—and what Republicans are afraid to say—is that gun control measures will deprive Americans of necessary freedoms, will target the wrong people, and will be ineffective.

With the possible exception of freedom of religion, self-defense is the most fundamental of all human rights. Abridge this right and you render citizens powerless when law enforcement is not immediately present. In addition to its practical implications, forced disarmament is an insult to every American, tantamount to declaring us incapable of caring for ourselves.

The only people whom gun control laws will affect, as intended, are law-abiding citizens who need no restrictions placed on them. Gun control laws didn't stop Eric Harris of Columbine High from buying guns, nor did they stop the dealer who sold him guns. For that matter, the laws against murder didn't stop him either. If a person will go so far as to kill, especially in the premeditated and organized fashion of the murders that have been publicized lately, the law becomes only a piece of paper—just one more low hurdle for the criminal to step over on his or her determined progress toward the finish line. I would imagine that many of my readers, especially those who are more liberal, have purchased or have been given a controlled substance in the past. How much of a problem did you have procuring that substance? I would guess little or none, with the exception of having to pay at a premium sufficient to satisfy the risks taken by the producers and middlemen.

If the current gun control trend is allowed to continue, there will be only two results: the rise of a black market in guns (much like today's drug culture) and the inability of America's law-abiding citizens to defend themselves when the need arises—which it will as frequently as before gun control laws were put into effect. If laws cannot stop the efforts of the murderer, then they must allow an individual to prevent himself from becoming the victim. The Constitution mandates that the right to keep and bear arms should be "well-regulated." Not restricted or abrogated, but regulated.

Background checks and required sale of trigger locks are fine—those regulations ensure that the proper people have guns and are using them for appropriate reasons. The Democrats are correct on the necessity of requiring background checks at gun shows. Starting from that point, Democrats inflate their position with empty rhetoric and tear-jerking to launch a barrage of criticism against a straw man, accusing all those who oppose gun control of heartlessness, backwardness, and National Rifle Association (NRA) corruption.

Well, I've never taken a dime from the NRA, but I am capable of agreeing with the organization. My criticisms of gun control come from reason and a realistic view of criminal nature. I would suspect that a few Congressmen and governors, who haven't given in to the demagogues, ground their beliefs in the same principles that I do. Unfortunately, when the Democrats blow gun control far out of proportion in the next election, the Republicans will probably end up losing—that's axiomatic in a majoritarian government. However understandable, it is disappointing that those Republicans concerned primarily with maintaining power are shifting their positions to join the ranks of the deluded Democratic tear-jerkers.

Ned Andrews is a freshman in Saybrook.

Back to Opinion...