All in favor, raise your cold, dead hands...

It was almost too good to be true – not “good” good, just yummy blog fodder. Seems an Arizona state legislator from Mesa (the wackiest ones we’ve got out here) was sponsoring a bill to make it legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. It’s already okay to take a gun into a bar, so why not up the ante?

Even the right-leaning Courier editorialized against it, but that didn’t stop some readers from chiming in with knee-jerk defenses of the 2nd Amendment. The very first person to post a response claimed, “If it requires a permit, it is not a Right. A permit, by definition, is ‘permission’. You do not need ‘permission’ to excercise a Right.” But in defense of the paper’s stand, another person observed that said amendment does provide for a “well-regulated” militia.

Now, regardless of how this bill turns out, the fact remains that there are people who believe gun ownership should be a no-holds-barred proposition. The operative sentiment seems to be, bad guys will get guns without permits anyway, so why should honest citizens have to jump through hoops? This either/or mentality is crazy-making – the same line of thinking that views the world as us and them, and we all know where that gets us.

But the shades of the spectrum between bad guys and honest citizens is so varied that it also takes in crazies who go on rampages in workplaces, schools, restaurants, military bases, and even churches. And don’t forget the iconic postal worker. (Hello, Newman...) And how about that guy who just pulled up next to you at the stoplight, the one who’s been tailgating you for the past two miles?...

The NRA’s answer to increased gun violence, even massacres like Virginia Tech? More guns for everybody! That’s because this gang o’ loonies has its members indoctrinated into this all-or-nothing attitude wherein any attempt at regulation triggers a red flag. And we all know what regulation means: no more hunting Bambi’s mom with assault rifles.

Does anyone seriously think the Framers had this in mind when they put their muskets back on the wall after defeating the Redcoats? Or that they opened the amendment with the words “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” just because they wanted to pad it out a bit? The complete wording even hits you in the face when you go to the NRA website, but you have to think they’re speed-reading past that first clause. And somehow I can’t envision Wayne LaPierre as a colonial militiaman. (Maybe in a Napoleon hat and a straightjacket, though.)

I don’t think gun ownership is the real issue here. The real issue is why such issues have to be black and white, no shades of gray allowed. Sure, let’s provide for that “militia,” but let’s keep it well regulated as was intended. I won’t deny there’s some sense to the motto “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”; but if guns aren’t regulated, don’t press your luck at stoplights.