Skip to main content

who blogs at Dirigo Blue and Kennebec Blues
Follow @BruceBourgoine on Twitter

Guns should be holy. I mean that in the sense of awe for their power and deep respect for the responsibility one confers. Our country’s reactive acceptance of the place of guns in our society is far too casual. One segment of society’s interpretation of the right to bear arms has become too dogmatically overreaching and divorced from the awesome responsibility associated with guns within it.

My brother and I were given .22 rifles by our Marine Corps Dad when we were a certain age for the pre-hunting activities of target and varmint shooting. A sense of respectful awe and responsibility was imparted in the process along with knowledge of expectations and consequences. The owning, handling, using, safeguarding, and caring of your gun was very serious business.

Our society now has broken that preceding tradition and as a whole has embarked on ‘giving’ guns through its loose markets and casual attitudes to very many without any sense of responsibility. Such things as gun safety training, responsible handling, and a sense of proportion are essentially optional for the gun owner. We are negligent in conferring responsibility in ownership due in part to a well funded National Rifle Association über-libertarian approach to guns that distorts reality and masquerades as being responsible when far from being so.

The Second amendment is the touchstone on guns. We need to realize its roots are in a different time and essentially different country where women could not vote and holding slaves was legal. It was at a time when weapons did not exist that allowed mass murder by a single individual in a matter of minutes. We have to determine what the right to bear arms means in the 21st century without imposing 18th century absolutism irrelevancies on today.

The right to bear arms surely ought not to confer the right to sell arms without any reasonable restriction by private sellers in the back of magazines and online.

The right to bear arms ought not to give traveling gun shows the right to sell arms.

The right to bear arms ought not to be extended to assault weapons that can murder many in mere moments.

The right to bear arms ought not to be understood to be a loophole that allows the migration of millions of untraceable handguns into inner cities.

The right to bear arms ought not to act as prop for gun manufacturers to escalate the killing power of weaponry.

The right to bear arms ought not to confer an automatic right to purchase large quantities of ammunition including some designed to penetrate police protective armor.

The right to bear arms ought not to imply an option of collecting vast amounts of weapons to in a twisted notion act as a check on our government.

Gun control alone will not end the violence in our society but it is time to acknowledge that it is a very substantial piece of the solution along with adequate mental health availability, a cultural turn away from violence as entertainment, and many other collaborating steps. It is sobering and grievous to realize that even with an all out concerted effort it will probably take a full generation or more of not only control but also the removal of some quantity of existing weapons now in the wrong hands or in unwarranted collections before gun violence and its horrible marks on our society begins to subside.  

Gun regulation is needed now to return a sense of awe, responsibility, and even reverence for guns that reshapes us into a safer more secure society. We can have both constitutional protection and sound policy when it comes to guns. For the sake of our future and that of our children we must make guns holy again.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This is spot on (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tekno2600
    The Second amendment is the touchstone on guns. We need to realize its roots are in a different time and essentially different country where women could not vote and holding slaves was legal. It was at a time when weapons did not exist that allowed mass murder by a single individual in a matter of minutes. We have to determine what the right to bear arms means in the 21st century without imposing 18th century absolutism irrelevancies on today.
    and never gets enough play in these debates.

    Wouldn't treat guns as holy though - that would be the ultimate mixed message.

    •  I agree that my title is jarringly provocative... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tekno2600, filkertom

      ...but its purpose is to place the seriousness of connecting guns with what we might accept in society as rational functionality along with a great weight of responsibility.

      As for the centuries of change, it has been discounted far too greatly and adapting our rights from the time of the single shot musket or two used by families for hunting and yes protection to today's wild array of rapid killing weaponry is an essential matter we must confront.

      Thanks.

  •  I once saw a show from Japan on skin cancer (0+ / 0-)

    they uncovered people who suffered from skin cancer .
    People who had lost their faces to skin cancer .
    They had masks removed to show the real damage .

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 10:15:13 AM PST

  •  The "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd (0+ / 0-)

    Amendment never gets enough play. People want to quote the "keep and bear arms" part without any reference to the well regulated militia part. Now I know the Supreme Court has recently ruled (somewhat inexplicably) that bearing arms is an individual right and is not just limited to being part of the official state militia. But, that still does not mean that sensible regulations cannot be imposed.

    Not only should there be training classes and background checks for owning guns, there should be regular checkups to make sure that guns are being kept in safe working condition, that they are properly secured when not in use, and that the owners have the physical and mental ability to use them properly. You have to have a vision test every few years in order to drive a car. You should at least have to pass a vision test and a mental health screening every few years in order to keep an arsenal of assault weapons.

    Also, even if you can keep guns, no one ever said that bullets could not be controlled. There should be a microchip in every bullet, and it should be registered to the person who bought it. If a bullet ends up in something or somebody, we should know where it came from.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 11:01:22 AM PST

  •  Respect, yes, like other dangerous machines (0+ / 0-)

    "Holy" sends the wrong message, though. People who are too emotional about guns (whether sacralizing them or being terrified by them) are inhibited from figuring out policies that will work.

    But I do wish that everyone who owned a gun got the same kind of schooling about it that rural people did. Which included maxims like "When you get angry, lock up your guns".

  •  I'm convinced... (0+ / 0-)

    ...after comments here, elsewhere, and especially with an avid hunter friend last night who supports gun control that my title, intended to be provocative, "Guns Should Be Holy" missed the mark.

    Perhaps "Return True Traditional Values To Guns" might have been a far better descriptor. As always the give and take commentary on my pieces educates me as the diarist as much as we also try to do so with each other. Thanks.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site