JMO - Discussion about guns

Isn't it time this nation had an intelligent discussion about guns? And yes, it's time to come to the realization that some degree of regulation and oversight is necessary to ensure our nation doesn't become a lawless one where individual citizen use guns to exercise their choices and decisions on justice. It's time to realize that's already happening in some places of this country where a gun becomes the instant decision maker of choice.

It's also time to accept it's not about the Constitution, which doesn't guarantee the right to own guns, but only for national defense and protecting citizens (law enforcement). It's time we as a nation stand up and tell the NRA where they belong in the agenda of the discussion, one of the players but not the one or the controlling one. Citizens who don't want guns have rights too.

It's time the Supreme Court reinforced the Constitution to reflect the place guns have in our life and our nation, not a guarranteed one without restrictions, but one in cooperation with all citizens and the right for governments to regulate the sale and ownership of them for the protection of life and property for everyone, not just gun owners.

I have the right to speak for gun regulation, and control if necessary, and I have the right to expect to see laws passed and enforced to that end. The point is that fewer guns leads to less crime and violence than more guns. More guns only leads to more crime and more violence. It's the old idea when someone wants to hurt someone, a gun makes it easier and deadlier.

That's the reality. When you look at countries where there are fewer guns (per capita), there is less crime and less violence. And the reverse. It's the reality of guns and what they do to people. And it's not about just people, but people with guns. That's what the NRA won't admit and doesn't want the public to know.

Simply put, no citizen needs a gun to make a living and get by in life. No citizen needs a gun for the expectation of protection if fewer people didn't have guns and the chances of violence against them is lessened with fewer guns. It's about the need to limit guns because it's about people with guns are far more likely to use them than without them.

But when you sell a gun mentality to people, they will believe a gun is there for their protection. From what and for what? The vast majority of homes haven't experienced burglaries and the vast majority of people haven't experienced a violent crime against them. And it's only people and criminals with guns who are the threat to everyone.

Yeah, I know, so much for an intelligent conversation about guns, when I'm so anti-gun. Well, if we don't speak up with our view and for our rights, then there won't be a discussion. I have rights to know others don't have or carry guns and aren't a threat to me by simply having that a gun.

So, I get the right to sit at the table to argue against guns and for laws governing guns and gun owners and sellers. And it's not that I don't have experience with guns. I used them as a kid in southern Idaho. I used them in the service during the Vietnam-era. And I used them afterward on occasion with friends (long story about how not to hunt rabbits in a vineyard).

But in the end, I don't see the need for eveyrone to have one. It's not just about protection. It's about freedom and the right to be safe and secure. That doesn't require guns, but the absence of guns. It's time to leave the guns to those who need them in the performance of their job to enforce the law. They also deserve the right to be safe against people with guns.

It's about what best for America and every American. That's what this country is about, not the NRA or people advocaing guns simply because they want more of them. It's about us too who what to advocate against them, because we know they don't make us safer, only worried about those with them. That's our right too.