I covered the Frankfort gun rally this morning. Didn’t stay for the entire rally (had other stories to work on), but had a good interview with one of the leaders of the group sponsoring the rally. Here are some of my thoughts on the issues the rally-goers spoke about.
Red Flag laws
This seemed to be the biggest issue for many of those at the rally. Basically, a Red Flag Law allows a certain set of designated persons (family members, medical professionals, law enforcement officers) to petition to have someone’s weapons taken from them, temporarily, because they are a “danger to themselves or others.”
The language of that last phrase is important: it is similar or identical to the language for a psych hold on an individual. And without going into details, let me just say that there are times when such a hold can save one or more lives.
The same is true for Red Flag Laws (RFLs). Having a way to disarm a person who is a danger to themselves or others can be one of the most caring things you can do. And, it can save lives – especially since a large percentage of gun deaths are suicides.
The main concern of the rally goers seemed to be due process. Frankly, I think they have a point. The law must be written in such a way that it cannot be abused, or used as harassment. I hope that the persons writing the bills and the leaders of today’s rally can talk about the bill’s language, and work out a solution that takes care of the due process concerns.
Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines
Another item under consideration is banning certain types of weapons, as well as high-capacity magazines.
This is one of those issues that is part of the “no regulations of any kind” approach taken by some gun owners. They see any sort of regulation as a slippery slope to autocracy.
Many other citizens, myself included, see no reason for everyday citizens to own these mass killing capabilities. It’s one thing to say “guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” Well, duh – but do we have to make it easier for them to kill mass numbers of people in a few seconds? Limiting the ability to fire off hundreds of rounds a minute seems like common-sense to us.
Absolutism regarding gun legislation
One significant feature I noticed about today’s rally goers was the absolutism when it comes to weapons safety and legislation. ANY attempt at ANY regulation of ANY kind – or even discussion of such – is seen as an attack on the entire 2nd Amendment. In fact, one of the favorite signs and lines was “What part of ‘Shall no be infringed’ do you not understand?”
It should also be noted that over and over, the right to own any weapon at any time was called a “God-given right.” That struck me as a misuse of the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” phrase – especially since YOUR use of it endangers MY use of it – but maybe that’s just me.
This 2nd Amendment absolutism resembles absolutism in other areas of policy and politics. Are there things that we should be adamant and absolute about? Certainly. However, I don’t think the Founders of our nation envisioned a situation where a citizen could carry around the ability to kill hundreds of people at a time, and the government not have a say in that.
Obviously, for any person who believes that the 2nd Amendment guarantees them the right to own any kind of weapon, at all times, with the government having no say in the matter at all, it will not be possible to have any sort of meaningful discussion about weapons safety and legislation. I hope, though, that there are enough gun owners who realize we need to address these issues and are willing to engage in finding good solutions.
Fighting the government
Frankly, I was surprised when more than one person said that the purpose of having guns, including high-powered and high-capacity guns, was to take up arms against the government.
I have a hard time imagining everyday citizens standing up to the U.S. Army, no matter how the citizens were armed. And, your high-capacity magazine won’t be much help in defending against a drone strike.
And finally, if you are worried about our country turning into an autocracy, then helping the rest of us vote out Donald Trump is going to be more helpful than stocking your shelves with ammo.
The fear
I got into a long and pleasant conversation with one attendee, wherein we covered a variety of topics beyond guns. It turned out we agreed about a number of things – and in fact, he had worked with KFTC on stopping a pipeline expansion and protecting the environment.
He was a conservative, and I shared that I was a progressive. He said something that really struck me: “You know, we are scared of progressives.” I asked why, and he said “Because we are afraid you are going to take our country to socialism.”
I then told him that, guess what, progressives were scared of some conservatives. Why? Because we are afraid that they are going to take back all the hard-won rights of the last 50 years.
So, that’s the final thing I leave you with: Both sides in this debate, and in many debates, are shouting at each other over walls – walls we have built to protect us from what we are scared of.
Maybe one of the things we need to do is find some safe places to talk instead of shout.
–30–