Safer to be Daffy

Back during my duck hunting days, it was illegal to use a shotgun that could hold more than three shells at one time. This, I assume, was to protect the ducks from greater slaughter and allow the duck population to flourish. I heard no one complain that their beloved Second Amendment was being violated by this. It was accepted as a reasonable restriction. A compromise. A balance of competing interests.

If we can protect Daffy without destroying the Second Amendment, why can’t we protect people by a similar limit on the number of rounds that a handgun or clip can carry? Simply ban 20 round clips. Limit handguns to 3 shots. Can a reasonable argument be made by the NRA that this would not have at least kept the carnage at Virginia Tech to a lower level?

Of course, we cannot have a rational discussion of ways to balance Second Amendment rights with saving lives. The response by the NRA and others to any discussion of gun control is that any limit on guns is a left wing, communist, secular humanist, anti-Christian, un-American, socialist, Jewish, Islamo-fascist, pinko, homosexual plot to take away our guns. After we are rendered defenseless, "they" will then ban school prayer, burn our flag, ban our SUV’s, rape our sons, enslave our daughters, and then force us to eat crepes while listening to the Dixie Chicks and watching the Motorcycle Diaries. If we let them limits any aspect of our precious gun toting heritage, then it is only a matter of time before the guvment has taken all our guns away. This cogent argument, of course, comes from the people who gladly let our guvment restrict other constitutional rights in the name of security (and saving lives).

This country simply must get past these insane arguments and finally address the gun problem that we clearly have in this country. As we have not, but need to do with national security, we must also find a balance between the constitution and public safety. Until we do this, it is safer to be Daffy.

- Jeff Bloomfield