Shooting Off at the Mouth

Guns don't kill people. Gun owners do. So is that why we let the NRA decide our gun laws?

The time has come to stop the madness. Just last week some poor 4-year-old kid shot and killed himself with a handgun that his stepfather had left lying around. The initial news reports were quick to point out that, like many states, Arizona doesn't have a law that allows parents or guardians to be charged with a crime for leaving loaded guns within the reach of children. And yet, just a couple days later, the stepfather was arrested and charged with child abuse and negligent homicide.

Well, this time the gun grabbers have gone too far. They just can't make up laws out of nowhere. Neither should they be able to apply other laws to cover a situation where there exists an intentional gap in jurisdiction.

Over the years, the good and wise people in our state legislature have seen to it that Arizona gun owners can express their manhood in as free and unfettered a manner as possible. They have banned municipalities and counties from passing gun laws of their own. They've made it easier for people to carry concealed (and unconcealed) weapons. And they've made sure that folks can't be charged with a crime just because they leave a loaded gun lying around where a kid might pick it up.

Arizona's lawmakers have kept us relatively free from pesky gun laws for a couple good reasons. First of all, they can recognize a Communist plot when they see one. And second, they realize that Freedom isn't free and that 40,000 or 50,000 gun deaths a year in this country simply constitute acceptable collateral damage on the Road to Liberty.

We pathetic liberals would probably be much better off if we were to embrace acceptable gun-death figures. (The ability to spot Communists is best left to the professionals.) Guns keep us free, so more guns will only make us freer.

Every time some kid shoots a few of his classmates or a disgruntled ex-employee thins out the work force at his former place of business, the Whiny Marys come out of their Volkswagen buses and scream for more gun laws. Then, the National Rifle Association--the most patriotic of all American organizations--correctly points out that there are already thousands of gun laws on the books and apparently none of them works.

That's the crux of the matter. It's not that we don't have enough gun laws; we have too many. In fact, I think that even one gun law is too many.

The Second Amendment is the most important part of the U.S. Constitution because it protects all of the other rights. Of course, the Supreme Court has always said that no right is absolute and they've put limits on everything from free speech to the right to be secure from unlawful search and seizure. (Then again, the Supreme Court is a veritable coven of Fellow Travelers. Why, when President Eisenhower named a Republican governor to be Chief Justice, within two years the guy had been turned to the point where his Court allowed black people to go to school with whites, and we all know what a Commie idea that is!)

The Second Amendment should be sacrosanct. You can tinker with the other amendments, but leave the important one alone. And never you mind about that Militia part at the front of the Second Amendment. The framers of the Constitution just threw that in for fun.

Let's get rid of all gun laws, every single one. An 8-year-old wants a bazooka? Will that be cash or charge? A convicted violent felon wants an Uzi? Hey, convicted felons get mugged, too--probably more often than the rest of us do. Guns at school? Why not? It would cut down on the boredom.

We should arm airline pilots and co-pilots and flight attendants and all of the passengers. I'll bet if we did that, we wouldn't see any more planes crash into buildings. Not on purpose, anyway.

And heck, if not for the stupid gun laws, David Koresh would be alive today, free to force himself upon as many 12-year-olds as he could find in his compound.

I tried to float the no-gun-laws idea a few years back. I accompanied my friend, Emil Franzi, to the NRA national convention in Phoenix. I stood in the back of the hall and listened as Ted Nugent gave a fiery speech and the entire audience bleated, "Four legs good! Two legs bad!"

I asked some people if we should get rid of all gun laws. Several quickly answered in the affirmative, but a few others gave it some thought and said that we should have at least a few gun laws, as long as they're reasonable. When I told them that I thought a complete ban on handguns in the United States would be reasonable, most responded that they were thinking more along the lines of not allowing Gatling guns in church and that sort of thing.

One of Emil's buddies said that only gun owners have the proper insight necessary to make good gun laws. Does that mean that since I have never drunk alcohol, I should have no say in determining the legal drinking age? I don't gamble, so should I abstain from voting on the Indian Gaming initiative on the November ballot?

If we get rid of all of the gun laws, would the NRA declare total victory and close up shop, or would there be an internal debate over whether there should be at least some gun laws?

So, what would it be, NRA? No gun laws at all or just the ones that you like? And if it's just the ones you like, why not the ones I like?

About The Author

Comments (0)

Add a comment

Add a Comment

Tucson Weekly

Best of Tucson Weekly

Tucson Weekly