NRA member shares thoughts on gun rules

I promised myself that I wasn’t going to write a column about the current gun-control fracas. You know I hate wading into the middle of whatever the hot topic is. I figure you folks get enough of that everywhere else in the news. If you’re like me, it’s almost like an overload lately.

Getting bombarded every day with a little sprinkling of the pro-gun side here and there (usually only showcasing the more eccentric personalities or radical takes) and a massive amount of propaganda — oh, I mean (ahem) “news” — on behalf of those wonderful, rational politicians who truly have only your best interests at heart. Oh, and that Constitution thingy doohickey, too. But after today, I just can’t help myself. I gotta let it out. So here goes.

First of all, yes, I’m NRA. Let’s get that out of the way. Why? Because I enjoy firearms, believe in the Second Amendment and view it as the one that helps ensure the First Amendment can be exercised. But I guess I’m on the wrong side of that argument, because if you look through both history and current events, it is clearly demonstrated there is no reason why anybody really needs to own a firearm.

Why, just look at the wonderful successes countries have had with restricting firearms: Russia 1917. Germany 1936. China, Cuba, Venezuela and Iran are all examples of the utopia that comes with restricting the access of firearms by the public. And we can also see how banning firearms can bring about low crime rates by examining such peaceful places as Mexico and Brazil. Or, closer-to-home, Washington, D.C., or Chicago (where violent crime rates actually increased within one year of passing highly restrictive laws regarding firearms).

Other places where crime increased after passing anti-gun laws? Australia and the United Kingdom.

In contrast, where are some of the safest places in the world regarding domestic violent crime? Switzerland and Tel Aviv. In both of those countries you will find a fully automatic rifle in nearly every home. I guess the average criminal doesn’t want to break into a home or walk into a business where there is guaranteed to be at least one rifle and/or handgun on premises.

Did anybody catch the news wherein Dianne Feinstein was holding an assault rifle while speaking to the press? As she droned on and on about the dangers of the weapon she was holding, I couldn’t help but holler at the screen, “Watch where you’re pointing that thing, Dianne!” There she was, finger on the trigger and waving the barrel around so it flashed almost everybody in the room. Hey, Dianne, maybe a good place to start with gun safety would be learning how to properly handle one. Any of my grade-school-aged children would be happy to show you.

And why is it an “assault weapon” anyway? Do I have one because I’m planning on storming a hill somewhere? Why not call it what it is — a “defense/security weapon.”

Now, most people, especially those who may not be avid firearm enthusiasts, feel they can get behind severe restrictions or even outright banning “assault weapons.” Why? Because they have an image in their heads of what constitutes an “assault weapon” and just figure that all Americans are as level-headed and logical as they are and think the same thing.

Wrong. Who gets to define what constitutes an “assault weapon?” Why not ask somebody from California? They love their assault weapon ban there. Every year, they add more and more definitions on what constitutes an assault weapon. This barrel is too long. This barrel is too short. This one is too big. They started out with .50-caliber but are now eyeing .30-caliber.

That’s right. Your grandpa’s old Winchester 30-06 might now be an “assault weapon” in the eyes of California. Or my personal favorite — “any weapon that discharges more than one projectile with a single pull of the trigger.” Gosh, you mean like my single-shot .20-gage shotgun with a birdshot round? Well, it’s a good thing California has all those severe restrictions on firearms. Without them, we might see violent crime in happy little places like Southcentral Los Angeles or Oakland.

I noticed that Feinstein and pals have now introduced a list of features regarding what they would currently consider an assault weapon. They say that if your firearm has at least one of these features, it becomes one.

That’s interesting. So. if I take my little Ruger 10-22 and swap out the plain-Jane wooden stock for a collapsible one, voila! It is now an “assault weapon.” Same ammo, same rate of fire, yet it is now strangely transformed into something else? That makes about as much sense as my wife’s brother thinking that when he bolted a wing onto his trunk it made his Toyota Tercel into a Ferrari.

Look, I’m not above making some changes. Heck, I’ve got fellow NRA friends cussing me out because I’m not set in concrete over the current status quo. For example, the gun show loophole. Yeah, I think it would be a pain in the rear to make every gun sale be accompanied by a background check, but I’m for it anyway. I don’t like the idea of some kook being able to go to a garage sale and pick up a gun. How would I feel if I sold a gun to somebody only to find out he was deranged and had used it to kill somebody?

(For the record, I currently won’t sell a gun to anybody unless they’re willing to show me their ID and sign something acknowledging the purchase. If they refuse, no sale.)

I’m sure there are ways the government could make that easier. What if, let’s say, I had to go in every year and get my background check done wherein I was then granted a card? Something like a license that showed I was legally eligible to purchase a gun? And part of the process was something more thorough regarding the status of my mental health? And when you sell a gun, you send it a little stub reflecting the sale, similar to what you do with a car title? Make it a crime to sell a gun to somebody who doesn’t have the license. If somebody commits a crime and loses their gun rights and buys a gun from somebody anyway, the government would know about it when you send in the little stub and the idiot would be picked up to start doing jail time.

Would that eliminate the types of crimes we see using guns? No. Anybody who tells you it can be eliminated is fooling themselves. But I would think it would certainly help.

In the meantime, enough with the idea that banning or restricting guns would accomplish anything. We’ve placed restrictions on drugs and we can see how that’s worked out.

Ben Compton is a Palmer resident and publishes his column as “Compton’s Corner,” the same title used by his grandmother, Phyllis Compton, a longtime Frontiersman columnist.