I do not believe in gun control. Why? Because it can only be done by the owner. So why don’t we try to control the owners? What!, You say that can’t be done because it is unconstitutional. Okay, something must be wrong with my logic.
If we can make laws that mandate testing, insurance and an annual fee in order to drive a car, why can’t we do the same to carry a gun? But, you say, car driving isn’t protected by the constitution. Should it be? I doubt it but … cars didn’t exist at the time the document was written or maybe it could have been.
It occurred to me though that the guns that were available in 1776 bear little resemblance to those we have today. They were muzzle loaders that fired a musket ball, a far cry from automatic pistols and high powered automatic rifles. They were slow to operate and somewhat inaccurate. Maybe you could compare them to the horse and wagon of the 1700’s. In that same respect I can compare the constitutional protection to the horse and wagon of the time.
We protect, or try to protect, the citizens of this nation from incompetent and irresponsible drivers. We take away their “privilege” to drive in the event of drunkenness, a health problem that may impair their ability to drive, failure to have insurance, and for repeated violations of traffic laws. It seems to me that owners of firearms should be subject to the same restrictions in the interest of public safety.
Gun ownership should be regulated at least as well as the driving privilege. I see it as a safety issue.
Some will state that criminals will still illegaly have guns. Yes, they will, but criminals steal, cheat, maim and kill. Should we abolish all laws? I think not. People still break the speed limits, run tragic signals and stop signs. Should we abolish all laws? I think not.
Or, is there a flaw in my logic someplace?