Lotz: What the US can do to find a balance on the issue of guns
POLITICAL VOICES
We have asked two political junkies, one conservative and one liberal, to share their viewpoints on issues and politics leading up to the 2016 presidential election.
We will be publishing guest columns from time to time from Mike Miller and Blaine Lotz.
Miller's experience in politics includes working in the Reagan White House political office. He produces a blog on politics called MikesAmerica.
Lotz is chair of the Beaufort County Democratic Party and a former candidate for Congress.
Let's talk gun safety. Accessibility to all types and quantities of guns has created a climate of fear, insecurity and mayhem in our nation. What can we do? How does gun safety fit into the Constitution's 2nd Amendment in the 21st century?
I grew up in a center-city of 100,000 people. Friends who lived in the country frequently used weapons for target practice and hunting. I respected their right to do this then and still do. I also respect individuals' rights to own pistols for security if they feel threatened by crime. At the same time, I never fired a weapon until I was preparing to go to Vietnam in 1967, when I was required to participate in M-16 training at Fort Hamilton in California. During the Tet Offensive in early 1968, I carried a sidearm but never fired it while serving at Tan Son Nhut Air Base outside of Saigon.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" -- was written more than 200 years ago when our nation was in its infancy. Most modern-day weapons such as assault rifles were unknown at the time. Today's threat, whether from homegrown and radicalized terrorists or mentally disturbed persons, is entirely different from what threatened us as a nation in 1789.
Today, gun safety is one of the most divisive issues we face as Americans. Any suggestions to control the number or types of weapons available to the public are met by fear that the federal government will next seek to confiscate all personal firearms.
What to do?
1) Ban assault rifles -- types such as AR-15s or AK-47s. Neither hunters nor folks wishing to ensure their own personal safety need this type weapon, but terrorists and the mentally disturbed frequently use them in horrific massacres. Consider waivers for legitimate gun collectors. Such waivers need to be restrictive to ensure assault rifles are not easily transferred.
2) Ban individuals on our national terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms.
3) Close the gun-show loopholes that allow unfettered access to weapons without a waiting period for background checks.
4) Improve background checks for all.
My proposals would remove only one class of weaponry from the public domain: assault rifles. The government could collect these and financially reimburse owners. Of course, not everyone would comply, but it would surely reduce the number of guns on the streets and threaten those who did not comply with heavy fines and punishment. My remaining suggestions would not remove weapons but would work toward making sure that the wrong people did not have easy access to guns.
While none of these proposals will necessarily guarantee that we will never have another Sandy Hook or San Bernardino, I believe the opportunities will be lessened. No other Western democracies suffer the types of massacres that we have endured in recent times. Let's work to protect lives while keeping the 2nd Amendment viable in the 21st century.
Blaine Lotz of Hilton Head Island may be reached at gblotz@yahoo.com.
This story was originally published December 9, 2015 at 9:21 PM with the headline "Lotz: What the US can do to find a balance on the issue of guns ."