Gun Control in the 21st Century?

My blogger friend Deke  regularly writes about gun control and I often disagree with him. But in this instance, we share some common ground although we talk about it differently.

I have come to call it violence control instead of gun control. Every time I hear the words ‘gun control’ my hackles are raised because the Second Amendment is clear enough (within reason) that people can possess arms. And when I use the word ‘arms’, I mean knives, sabers, bayonets, daggers, handguns, rifles, bow and arrows, crossbows, and anything else that is used for protection and can be carried on your person. It does not include explosives like grenades. It does include mace and pepper sprays, brass knuckles, slings and slingshots. I know the Constitution did not define ‘arms’ and that our language has corrupted the meaning over the years ( i.e., nuclear arms race) . I think that whether any weapon is considered a personal armament (0r not) will be construed by the courts, if it ever ends up there. The word ‘bear’ will be interpreted to mean that the founding fathers meant offensive and defensive weapons that one carries on one’s person.

There is no question that personal weapons (arms) have evolved to a level that a single person can massacre groups of people. It is unreasonable to say that no restrictions can ever be placed upon the ‘right to bear arms’. It is very reasonable to assess any and all technologies that may be used as a personal weapon and to restrict the distribution, use, and possession of that technology to prevent massacres. Do we really need to wait for the courts to decide which weapons (and accessories) are covered under the Second Amendment or can we simply legislate the introduction of personal arms to the marketplace like we legislate the distribution of medical equipment and medicines into America’s healthcare market?

To do this may mean we end up with government control over an industry and the attendant bureaucracy that would go along with it. Is it possible to create an ‘FDA’ of personal armament that lives within the meaning of the Second Amendment while denying the distribution of armor piercing bullets and high capacity magazines?

What other choice do we have?

Of concern to me would be the rejection of new personal protection devices (PPD) because of political leanings. Would ray guns be permitted as PPDs by Democrats? Would the low lethality of a PPD become a criteria for distribution?

This is such a slippery slope but we should not be afraid to control an industry because it may lead to a weakening of our right to bear arms. I think that we should cautiously consider how to limit the violence that a single individual can inflict without gutting the Second Amendment.

I want to give it more thought but violence control might allow a parent to turn a disturbed child over to the state for a psychological evaluation and/or treatment or lifelong care. Violence control might allow for weapons restrictions like qualifications and training before ownership and use. Violence control may allow the state to detain violent persons for a fixed period of time who have a history of violent behavior that has not yet resulted in an arrest. And finally, violence control may prohibit family members from keeping PPDs in their homes if an overly aggressive or mentally ill person lives there.

I have advocated elsewhere that the Second Amendment is clear that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. I see now that there is a component of reasonableness that may infringe upon the Second Amendment else we loose monsters in our midst. We need smaller monsters now and bigger chains. Let’s proceed like reasonable adults and develop a set of violence controls in our society. And if at all possible, can we please keep it out of the federal government? And can we please not let the legislators muck this up with politically motivated crap?

More Federal Intrusion: Mandatory Vaccinations for Healthcare Workers

It’s not enough that the Federal government has taken over many aspects of the business and healthcare relationship between a patient and his doctor. Now the federal government indirectly controls whether a healthcare worker must obtain flu shots. They do this with a 2% reduction in reimbursement to medical facilities who do not demonstrate that their employees have had flu shots every year. And if you are a healthcare worker, where can you work and not get a flu shot if the federal government requires it?

Where is the freedom to be let alone?

Read this and weep for healthcare workers…

“So, if you know to seek medical help for an allergic reaction, the odds of dying from the vaccine are about 1 out of 1.6 billion.
On the other hand, the odds of having some type of mild non-fatal adverse reaction are about 20%, and the odds of having some type of serious adverse reaction (that is as bad or worse than the flu the vaccine is intended to prevent) are about 1 out of 2oo.”


You have lost control over what goes into your body if you are a healthcare worker. Next step, mandatory weight loss and exercise routines?