Moderation Essential in Gun Control Debate

We hear a lot of discussion these days about the vanishing middle class. I am much more concerned about the vanishing middle ground.

As a radical moderate, I abhor extremism on either end of the spectrum. The deadlock in Washington in recent years is the result of extremist positions held by both sides with no thought toward compromise.

Case in point: gun control.

The most recent record-setting (for now) mass murder in Orlando has reignited the debate. The Left is rallying to limit gun ownership ("Never let a crisis go to waste." ---Rahm Emanuel). The Right retorts, “over my dead body.” Something has to give.

If you require an AR-15 or AK-47 to defend yourself against Bambi, you are one sorry excuse for a man. These so-called assault weapons are designed for warfare, not for sport or self-defense. I seriously doubt the drafters of the Second Amendment envisioned such weaponry.

If the gun lobby, i.e., NRA et al., continues to stand their ground on the basis that any infringement on Second Amendment rights is “a foot in the door” for total confiscation of personal firearms, they face a day of reckoning where the losses could be far greater than a reasonable compromise now.

It is time to acknowledge that technology has outpaced personal responsibility in the use of firearms. Limiting access to guns by convicted felons, mentally unstable individuals, and those previously identified as security risks is a reasonable compromise.

Yes, criminals will always have guns, but they do not have to be mass killing machines.

(Published June 19, 2016 in The Montgomery Advertiser)