Mediaboss Marketing

As much as Id like to delve into a different topic, Bill Gouveias column on Monday was a telling essay that seems to reinforce the distinction between constitutional originalists and those who believe gun control regulation falls to individual, sovereign states.

His column (We need sensible gun regulations May 15) got my attention and commands a response.

I would imagine those who subscribe to the notion of strong individual state sovereignty will take exception to Gouveias comment that questions the mental health of those who believe more gun regulation delivered by the federal government is not warranted.

He suggests anyone not advocating for unified, presumably federal mandated laws is, in fact, part of the gun violence problem.

Ignorant political crap, silly pro-gun propaganda lies, chief among the nations mental health problems are those who do not believe guns need better regulation, if such people cant see what is going on, they are a big part of the problem ... hows that for a sample of from a we need more gun laws proponent? Not exactly the basis of a reasonable, civil dialogue.

Gouveia then goes on to contradict his first thoughts when early in his essay he notes that those who oppose more legislature at the federal level are in fact a large part of the problem. He then asks readers to spare the garbage approach when less-rules-supporters argue guns are not the problem.

Its not clear if he thinks guns are the problem or those who believe people are the issue behind gun violence. I guess it is both in his mind.

Gouveia then suggests that it ought to be made harder for criminals to get guns, all while suggesting virtually no one wants to ban guns yet suggesting the guns are not the problem view is garbage.

I suppose his diatribe against constitutionally supported laws and individual state sovereignty describes an approach that has been advocated by many who oppose interpretation of the Second Amendment as a right for all Americans, tempered by laws and regulation meant to straddle a rocky compromise of originalist constitutional interpretation.

My intuition hints that a large number of those who do not support private gun ownership and/or more restrictive regulations for ownership, are unaware of Massachusetts laws in that regard.

When people demand stronger laws for gun ownership the argument invariably moves to federal regulation and then, as Gouveia notes, the legislature cant seem to find the wisdom or courage to dig into new, more restrictive gun control.

What Gouveia fails to acknowledge, for example, are actions like proposals forwarded by the Obama-Clinton administrations at enrolling the country in an international gun control treaty. While such an accord with other nations had/has the proverbial snowballs chance of passing, just discussion of such a charter suggesting gun control imposed by other countries, raised hackles with irrational fears of gun confiscation that drove increased gun ownership.

Only ardent no-guns advocates would ever entertain the United States accepting another nations gun control rules.

Hyperbolic rhetoric and tagging those who view the Second Amendment through an originalist lens as being the problem and having mental health problems is not going to advance any sort of meaningful discussion for so-called increased gun control or banning of certain firearms.

There are many people who say things like I dont know why anyone would want a gun. Obviously they are entitled to that perspective. However, the Constitution, in originalist interpretation, says such ownership is a right, not to be infringed.

If you are not in agreement, your argument should be that the Constitution needs to be amended.

Bob Foley is a Sun Chronicle columnist. His essays are published here each Friday.

More here:
Bob Foley: Change the Constitution if you are unhappy with the ... - The Sun Chronicle