Gun rights versus gun control. The fight is on and both sides have vowed to battle to the bitter end. This is one of those issues that is fueled by high emotions and dogged determination by the advocates on both sides.
The Newtown, Conn., tragedy prompted President Obama to issue 23 Executive Orders promoting gun control, as well as proposing federal legislation, including calling for a ban on the sale of assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines. Gun-control advocates applauded Obama’s actions and the gun-rights supporters argued that his proposals will be ineffective.
Back in Maine, legislators will be knee-deep in their own feverish gun debates as an unprecedented number (40 and counting) of gun-related bills have been presented for legislative consideration.
Now, lawmakers must decide what, if anything, should be done. Are there “no-brainer” changes to our gun laws that would enhance our safety or not? The problem is that some legislators are already firmly entrenched on one side or the other and may not care to listen to the other side. For example, I recently asked several people the following question, “What is an assault weapon?” Each person gave a significantly different answer, reaffirming the fact that knowledge is critical, especially for legislators who could be creating laws that will have wide-ranging implications.
Often, the distinctions that determine a gun to be an assault weapon are not noticeable to the untrained eye. Adjustable stock, flash muzzle, threaded muzzle, and automatic clip removal are examples of some aspects that may define a gun as an assault weapon. As I examined two similar guns, one defined as assault and the other not, I couldn’t see the difference until I was shown the subtleties of each.
There is also considerable confusion regarding the term “semi-automatic.” Many people confuse semi-automatic, i.e., the trigger must be pulled each time a shot is fired, and “automatic,” i.e., pulling the trigger once and the gun keeps firing.
There is a lot at stake, and hopefully constructive dialogue will prevail – although the odds of that happening are not good. Here is the problem. There is literally no trust by either side of the gun issue. Many “Second Amendment” supporters are convinced that the ultimate goal of the anti-gun people is to take all guns away from everyone.
Conversely, the gun-control group feels just as strongly that if the pro-gun supporters had their way, there would be no limitations on the possession of guns or ammunition.
Each side believes that if they give even an inch, the other side will push for a mile. So it’s not as much about making changes in our gun laws. Rather, it’s about the perceived ramifications of giving up that all-important inch.
I recently had the opportunity to talk with several gun dealers and manufacturers from around the country. Privately, some admitted to me that there are a few common-sense changes they could agree to. For example, limiting the ammunition clip capacity to 10 rounds (bullets) was acceptable to some. However, they quickly added that conceding to any changes would weaken their positions. Their minds say yes, but their souls say no. Same goes for the anti-gun crowd. Giving in means giving up, or at least that would be the feared perception.
This upcoming gunfight will not be as simplistic as the famous shootout at the O.K. Corral (well, at the empty lot beside the O.K. Corral). This fight will be orchestrated and choreographed at the national level by highly sophisticated and well-heeled organizations on both sides. The ultimate goal will be, depending on which side, to either maintain the status quo – no gun law changes of any kind – or to pass as many new gun restrictions as politically possible.
Both sides will try to spin pubic opinion to support their positions, at the same time reminding legislators that the next election is less than two years away and key people are watching how they vote.
To each side: It’s not enough for you to know it’s right in your minds. It has to come from your souls.
Bill Diamond of Windham served as District 12’s senator from 2004-2012, and is also a former Maine secretary of state.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
