Recently, I was honored to be a Featured Blog on a website called For The Love Of Blogs and part of that was a glimpse into my profile; in that overview, I listed my participation in shooting sports as well as being an NRA Certified Pistol Instructor as one of several things I enjoy.

Given the horrible tragedy that took place last week-end in Tucson, I feel the need to expand on my personal firearm philosophies out of consideration to those who are understandably sensitive where guns are concerned.  This is one of those lengthy postings because I’m rattled and have much to share.

Nationwide reactions from politicians and citizens are at an all-time high at present regarding the ongoing debate over more stringent gun control; I could not agree more.  I am beyond sickened at the needless loss of innocent life in Arizona and for the suffering that Representative Gabrielle Giffords is now enduring.

Both my husband and I are legally registered owners of guns; we are both NRA Instructors, both Certified Range Safety Officers as well.  Do we hold the NRA up in some divine light while agreeing with all of the organizations statements, or sometimes lack thereof, regarding gun control issues….we do not!  The Second Amendment gets tossed back and forth similar to a volleyball during a game when it comes to any gun control-related discussion.  For those few (and I emphasise “few”) not familiar with this amendment, I share it here…

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militiaand to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment.  In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same extent that it limits federal authority.

We joined the NRA so that we could participate in its training programs and, of course, in order to obtain our New York permits to own/carry pistols.  That’s part of what each of us does for prospective applicants seeking to gain a pistol permit; we feature a mandated safety course of instruction with absolute emphasis on safety, safety, safety.  We teach responsibility as we provide our students with the knowledge, skills and proper attitude required in all aspects of firearms and shooting sports.  As Instructors, we also have the right to advise against an individual obtaining a pistol permit if their reasoning or capabilities are questionable.  That’s how we roll, can’t speak for others.

That’s where the great divide takes place between myself and the NRA regarding issues involving ownership of assault rifles;  for example, why is that type of firearm necessary for any individuals personal safety or…hunting purposes?  The very name “assault” goes against my personal grain just as calling any gun a “weapon” does.   No camo-outfitted individual needs to be out in the woods with a firearm capable of mass destruction to go hunting. Associating a completely negative connotation to any firearm is irresponsible and promotes an unnecessary “bad ass” attitude that should never be part of the dynamics of legal gun ownership and use.

The Second Amendment protects a right; as far as I’m concerned gun ownership is a privilege, much like having a driver’s license.   Again…the part of the amendment that reads “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.” well, I for one,  would prefer it if such a “well regulated militia” did not count violent criminals and the mentally disturbed among its membership.

No one is entitled to either, both must, and should, be earned and responsibly maintained.  Of course, that opens up the debate about control and I will agree that such regulation is in dire need, nationwide, of rigorous change and subsequent regulation.

Politicians like Representative Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman’s intentions. 

No problem there.

In the longer term, gun control advocates plan to lobby Congress to reinstate a ban on assault weapons that was first implemented in 1994 under President Bill Clinton and expired in 2004; the District of Columbia and six states, including California, already have the ban on their books. 

No problem there.

Personally, I’ve found that news coverage of gun control rarely fails to include “both sides.” Reporting is usually balanced, often predictably so; gun advocates hailing their sacred Second Amendment rights are pitted against gun control advocates arguing for incremental reforms like trigger locks and gun-show background checks that hardly address the enormity of the problem of firearms violence.  Gun restriction advocates also said they will lobby this session to close a gun sale loophole that allows private sales to occur without the screenings required for federally-licensed gun vendors.   Sadly, even with all the protections put into place on federally-licensed sellers, the ability to stop the next maniac from buying a gun through a private seller at a gun show, the internet or on the street will not thwart a future, unspeakable, tragedy from taking place.  Some Second Amendment advocates contend that outlawing guns will mean that only outlaws will have guns because criminals do not bother to purchase firearms through legal channels.

Talk about a red herring.  I have big problems with that!

Requiring standards that involve more intensive background checks along with physical and mental documentation isn’t enough.  Think about how many law-abiding, legal gun-owning citizens suddenly short circuit and disaster happens; how can that be circumvented?  What state or local government agency will police individuals holding permits and owning guns who become suddenly unstable, swoop down on them and seize their firearms before they harm someone else?  And, how many family members, or friends, of an individual owning guns will intervene, contacting authorities,  if that person shows sudden signs of mental instability?  Yes, with enough effort, criminals and the mentally ill will always be able to find guns through questionable means but that does not mean we should make it any easier for them to make these purchases legally.

One example…I attended an Alzheimer’s Caregivers Support Group when my mother lived with us.  A member of that group was the wife of a man suffering through the early stages of dementia; he was also a gun dealer, holding a Federal Firearms License.  She related that he was often violent and the only time he seemed “normal” was when he set up his booth at various gun shows; she always accompanied him, suffering through events that held no interest for her.  I was appalled at her attitude in turning her back on a potential tragedy just to keep her husbands combativeness to a minimum.  She refused to listen to any of my rhetoric on the potential devastating personal trauma she, or others, might suffer or legalities she might face if her husband went into any uncontrollable rage.  Her spouse remained adamant about maintaining his control over his firearms and refused to even allow her near keys to his gun storage cabinets.  This woman lived in fear of her husband yet refused any advice to contact her local police department so that they could remove, and store, firearms along with related material from the home until such time that they could be properly sold.

She promptly withdrew from the support group and refused further contact from anyone involved with the weekly gathering.  Fortunately, a neighbor became alarmed when her husband ran from the house yelling and shaking his fist and holding a gun; the police were notified and promptly came to remove all guns and ammunition from the premises.  Not long after that, the husband, during an angry outburst, threatened his wife with a kitchen knife; he currently resides in a nursing facility.

None of this is about making guns, per se, illegal; it’s about getting more and stricter regulations in place that will prevent scum like the Columbine killers or the Jared Loughner’s of society from ever putting their hands on any firearm.  The pity of this is that, even if by some national miracle, such a regulatory system does come to pass, the traffic in illegal firearms will continue to infest our country and I wish I had some intelligent suggestion for that issue but…I do not pretend to have all of the answers.  This is America — land of freedom, liberty, and innovation. Surely we can design a system that keeps the mentally deranged, those on no-fly lists, violent ex-cons, and those who have used guns in the commission of a crime from being allowed to legally purchase firearms and munitions without infringing on the rights of other Americans.

So, as far as the NRA is concerned, if you don’t like my personal spin on gun control issues, feel free to cancel my membership although I doubt much if you’ll pass up the revenue opportunity.  Facts are, I don’t hold all you spout out for public consumption to be the doctrine that I will live my firearm-possessing life by or teach to others; face it big guys, changes need to be made, and soon! 

In the meantime, I join millions of others in prayer for those lost in last week’s Tucson massacre; I pray even more for the recovery of Gabrielle Giffords.