Recently, an OpsLens colleague, whom I never met but thoroughly respect by reputation alone, posted an article discussing the need vs. the right to own an assault rifle. I think it was in response to my recent post disparaging a recent shootout at a bowling alley in Southern California.
First, I completely understand the point regarding the need vs. one’s constitutional right. Maybe I was a little loose with my language in my article. But let me expound a bit on my thought process. I understand it’s one’s right to own an AR-15. Just as I understand that it’s my right to own a bow and arrow. It’s also my right to own a 500-gallon aquarium full of piranhas. Or a venomous cobra. Both are dangerous, but it’s my right. Moreover, I own my late father’s shotgun. It’s a real beauty. It’s a 16-gauge Browning semi-automatic, probably as old as me.
I had it cleaned up and it sits in my closet with some shells. I have no idea if it’s registered and I don’t care. Why? Because the question for me is whether I need it or any of the things mentioned above? I’d love to have a 500-gallon tank full of piranhas, but do I need it? Of course not, so I don’t have it, even though it’s my right.
Second, there’s the old adage that when you need police protection right now, that it is often minutes away. Jayme Closs and her family needed cops right away, but they sped past her as she was hidden in the trunk of her abductor’s car while they responded to the initial 911 call.
I understand that premise, but I still don’t think I need an AR-15. Even if Jayme’s father James Closs had one, he was still a dead man walking as the assailant approached. He was shot in the head with a Mossberg pump shotgun as he peered through the door window. God rest his soul. His poor wife was murdered even more brutally while trying to protect her daughter. God rest her soul.
Lesson learned: If you are threatened, let the assailant expose himself first.
So, the question for me is whether we’re supposed to sit around our living rooms with a gun at our side while watching TV in the off chance that a bad guy will visit. Some may choose to live that way, but I cannot and will not. I’ll take my chances and rely on the police.
That being said, I won’t argue with the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns. But that right makes it far too easy for those who would do wrong to get their hands on them. Jake Patterson used his father’s shotgun to kill Jayme’s parents in as cold-blooded a murder as it gets.
Jake Thomas Patterson. (Credit: Barron County Sheriff’s Department)
As I said in a comment to my colleague, it seems like the Wild West these days and I think we can do better. With our current laws and lacking the ability to read a person’s mind, I see no other option but to reduce the supply of the most dangerous weapons that are for sale, i.e., AR-15s and their like.
Personal Story
Lastly, let me relate a short, personal story where, if guns were involved, disaster would’ve followed. What I’m about to tell you only scratches the surface of their debauchery. A young couple moved into the home directly across the street from me. I immediately realized that they and their friends were, shall we say…undesirables. Loud parties, late-night visits and quick departures were the norm. Neighbors logged several complaints that brought police to the residence.
One night, the young man of the house came home drunk at about midnight. Within minutes I heard loud arguing coming from the home. I let it pass. But then, I heard their two-year-old daughter screaming. (I raised four children and never heard any scream like that poor child’s.) I called the police. As they arrived everything quieted down. The police knocked on the door, but no one answered. stood on my porch and yelled down to the cops that I could see the young man moving around inside. They searched the yard and knocked again, to no avail. As they left, the police told me that given the quiet and without an obvious reason, they could not kick in the door to investigate.
Five minutes after they left the screaming started again. This time, the young man began shouting at me through his window while flipping me obscene gestures. I motioned for him to come outside so we could talk this through. All I wanted to say was, “Look man, it’s after midnight and you’re causing yet another disturbance in the neighborhood.” As he approached, I noticed he had a big knife. He lunged at me. I disarmed him and wrestled him to the ground, jamming his face hard into the pavement. Luckily, the police returned, presumably alerted again by neighbors. While holding him down with the rest of my body, I held the “Rambo-style” knife behind my back, outstretched so the police could see it, while shouting that I just took this from him. The police broke us up.
After about 20 minutes taking statements, the police carted him off in hand cuffs. I was charged with second-degree assault. The charges were dropped, and my record expunged. He was charged with a host of crimes, sentenced to a year in prison, and released after six months on “good behavior.”
I never saw him again because shortly after the incident, his girlfriend moved out. Unfortunately, in the disaster of all disasters, about a year later she was convicted of murdering her two small children.
Horrible story but true. What if I brought my Dad’s shotgun with me into that altercation? What if he brought a gun instead of a knife? Likely, one of us is dead. All I’m saying is that by math alone, carrying a gun anywhere, despite the most benign intentions, increases the probability of disaster. So shouldn’t we try to reduce those odds?
Yes, I know that most gun owners are decent law-abiding people. But, do they really “need” them. I don’t. Anyone want to buy mine? It’s a beauty.
Second Amendment Debate
Finally, the Second Amendment: “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.”
This has been debated from the day it was written.
Some look at the latter half of the Amendment and say that it’s my fundamental right to own a gun (the individual right theory). Others look at the first half and argue that a “well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” means the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense (the collective rights theory). Under the latter theory, the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have the individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
Nevertheless, several Supreme Court rulings dating back to 2008 have loosened states’ attempts to regulate individuals’ possession of firearms and, as such, we are where we are now.
As you might suspect, I stand with the collective rights theory. Gun violence in this country is out of control. We have the strongest militia on the planet. We have well-armed, well-trained police. If nothing else, we should all be willing to talk this through and find a practical solution we can all live with.
