Interesting stuff, eh Rick & Spaw? As I told my two friends about a week ago, I am guilty of a little bating on this to see where folks would go. I also indicated that I would respond to Guest Paul's link to a very well thought out and researched article. If you haven't read it, go back to his post and do so.

I guess I wanted to see if anyone could get past the emotional and strident tit for tat responses that always come about in any discussion on this topic. A few did. Most didn't. And, IMHO, that is why this debate is never ending. Let me explain my real views.

First off, I really do own a number of guns of various types, including a handgun. I am exceedingly responsible with them, very well trained, AND my politics really are to the left of center. In fact, in most areas I am far to the left of center. BUT I do not include gun ownership in this.

My real issue is stridency in views on this, or any other topic. But let us stay with guns. In over a quarter century of political activism, there is one lesson that I am taught over and over again. No solution is possible, in a modestly democratic society, when the only voices are from the two ends of the spectrum. Reasonable solutions come when reasonable people allow the circle of their respective experiences to overlap. In other words, we cannot get reasonable solutions until the opposing sides try to wear each others moccasins.

Folks like myself, law abiding citizens who own guns, see them as a part of our heritage, and ownership as a generations old legacy passed on from generation to generation. The right to shoot is a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood. The learning to handle these weapons is much like learning to drive a car. It comes with age, signifies acceptance as an adult, and demonstrates that one has shown the maturity and intelligence to handle these weapons. The hunting and shooting stirs up memories of good times and happy hours spent with Da, Uncles, cousins and friends.

For other folks, the guns stir up different feelings. It is a parent sitting in their living room, the one place they should feel more secure than any other place, and seeing a hole appear in the wall, or a window shatter. It conjures up the cold fear that they feel when they hear the report and in a panic scramble to check if their kids are alive or the victim of a drive by shooting. All the feelings that I have never occur to this person.

That is the chasm that must be bridged, yet one would ask how is this possible. And I believe the answer is found in trying to get these two disparate groups, along with the others that have other views to talk to one another. Without the strident crap thrown in. If the parent who fears for the safety of themselves and their families could come to understand that it isn't my guns that they have to fear, it is the criminals, that would be a beginning. If folks like myself could understand the horror by folks having to worry for the basic safety of their families, that would foster understanding. But this won't happen when all that folks do is sit back and spout strident crap about 2nd amendment rights or how their is no legitimate use for guns. Neither statement is correct.

Guest Paul's article was extremely well written and full of accurate data. What is the problem with it then you might ask? Simple. It's basic predicate is that it makes the arguement that we would be better off without any guns, as if that was possible. It is not. Like it or not, guns are part of the fabric of this country. Whether we are talking legitimately owned guns, or guns used in the commission of crime, or guns used in shooting accidents..........the simple fact is that in the USA, guns have been a part of our heritage (good and bad) since its inception. And the numbers, where you can trust them, show that there is not support for the most strident positions on either side of the question.

So what am I saying? Just this. Spouting second amendment rhetoric is silly and polarizing. No court has ever upheld that position nor will they. Mouthing off about completely banning any legitimate gun ownership is a waste of time. There are too many people, like myself, that will not give up our guns because they are an important part of our lives. And because of these splits, in a democracy, it is highly unlikely that either of these positions will ever be achieved.

But this much is certain. There will be change in this society on this issue. The key for the parties is to be a part of the discussion. Those who cling to these tired old arguements on both sides of the issue will not be a part of the discussion. And that would be a shame.

One of the most interesting things to me is that as long as folks cling to these strident positions, they often end up voting for politicians who on most every other issue vote against the best interests of the same folks. That is why it is imperative that folks get to reasoned discussion without blown out of proportion stats like the Brady's use. I have met both of these folks in my travels. While they may be Republicans, they can hardly be classified as the darlings of the Republican party. Their views have made them outcasts with much of their own party.

Enough rambling.

All the best,

Mick