(C) Daily Montanan This story was originally published by Daily Montanan and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Our gun problem is worse than you think – Daily Montanan [1] ['More From Author', 'December', 'Darrell Ehrlick'] Date: 2022-12-15 This past summer, I was at a garage sale and saw a person openly carrying a firearm. It struck me as incongruous that such an instrument was needed at an estate sale that also featured an amazingly good assortment of accordions. I chalked this up to fluke and being in Montana. The following week, I saw a nearly identical thing, albeit without the accordions. I respect the right to carry arms and I don’t dispute that the folks who tote their guns to garage sale have every right to do so. It’s the worldview that I question. In full disclosure: I enjoy guns – from the artistry and craftsmanship, to the loud things that go bang. My home isn’t exactly gun-free, although there are gun safes with the appropriate locks and safeguards. However, even as a gun enthusiast, I still gulp when I see firearms at garage sales or grocery stores because I wonder about a person who feels their existence threatened enough to carry, but also feels comfortable enough checking on the price of a used lawnmower. This week, while in traffic, I noticed that the bumper ahead of me was covered in a variety of stickers. The one that stood out was the sticker that said: The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting. That, too, is also correct insofar as it oversimplifies the Second Amendment. Hunting appears nowhere in the text, and while hunting was likely more prevalent when the United States Constitution was written, the context of the amendment doesn’t say anything about hunting. As you’ve probably heard in Montana: One of the most frequent reasons given for the state’s extraordinarily high gun ownership rate is hunting. Furthermore, many who defend increasingly more aggressive gun laws do so using hunting as a defense (in other words: I need all these guns to feed my family). Yet the founding fathers didn’t really contemplate a time where hunting was unnecessary, and the Second Amendment speaks of the right to keep and bear arms. That’s where most people stop reading, but forget the other part, which is keeping firearms for the purpose of a well regulated militia. In other words, while the Second Amendment doesn’t say anything about hunting, it also doesn’t say much about toting your gun(s) wherever you want, including to a bake sale, a garage sale or other gatherings. In fact, I’d argue the Second Amendment is far less mysterious than people think: The purpose is to keep guns for military service, ostensibly in defense of the country. Over time, that meaning has widened expansively to mean guns are allowable for personal use in nearly any setting. So this is the true chasm between Second Amendment zealots and those of us who believe in something short of banning weapons. It’s not about how many guns or what purpose those guns serve – hunting or defense. Instead, it’s something a lot larger and harder to bridge: It’s how we see the world. I am well aware that generally speaking the world is a dangerous place. I have covered violence and shootings. I have been horrified to see what guns can do in places like Colorado Springs, Uvalde, Las Vegas and Sandy Hook. I am just not confident that arming more people would have yielded different, better results. I haven’t been quite able to wrap my head around the idea that the world is so dangerous or that I am so good with a gun that carrying one is good or necessary. Quite frankly, I am more worried about the drivers who are traveling to those garage sales or grocery stores than I am concerned they’re going to shoot me. That doesn’t lessen the inherent danger of driving, and I haven’t added a weapons system on my truck to defend my life, which is much more likely to be threatened by inattentive driving than an armed madman. Is the world really so scary that you have to be armed everywhere? I don’t know because I have never screwed up the courage to ask. And that’s really the point: Whenever a gun enters the conversation – even passively by being strapped to a holster and a belt – the dynamic changes. That’s the whole reason law enforcement officers employ them. It tends to leave little doubt about the power dynamic and differential. Some have even asked as a point of concern: As a newspaper editor, wouldn’t it help to have a gun? I have never found one occasion as an editor that would have been made better, or resolved a situation more satisfactorily. Maybe the biggest con job the gun lobby has done is to de-emphasize the power of the gun (ironically), as if they’re as simple as a fashion accessory. We’ve started to produce them in designer colors; we now have purses made especially to hold that concealed weapon. And, of course, we’re wearing them at garage sales. Second Amendment supporters say they believe in the Constitution enough to exercise their rights by carrying a gun, but what happens when I believe in those same laws enough to trust law enforcement or believe in the peace of the country enough to be certain that there are few instances where I need a weapon? A gun isn’t a sign of solidarity for the Second Amendment, instead it’s more of an affirmation of fear. And the only thing we have to fear is … well, nevermind. You probably can already finish that phrase for yourself. And I am not so sure it means much to the carry-guns-everywhere crowd since it was said by a Democrat anyway. [END] --- [1] Url: https://dailymontanan.com/2022/12/15/our-gun-problem-is-worse-than-you-think/ Published and (C) by Daily Montanan Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/montanan/