As a gun owner from California, a lot of the rhetoric in recent years surrounding gun ownership of “defense of the second amendment” has been, oftentimes, baffling.
For example, until I was in my twenties, I thought it was strange that people were becoming more and more vocal about gun ownership laws, specifically the supposed need to increase gun restrictions. When I would press further about what people meant, they would parrot talking points about backgrounds checks, closing “loopholes”, not allowing felons to own guns, and things like that. When people suggested these things to me, I didn’t so much think they were wrong and just woefully uninformed. You see, in California we have had those since around or before I was born. So it just seemed like it was a bunch of non-gun owners whining about a thing about which they knew nothing.
Then, in my twenties, I was reading an article about how the NRA “defeated” a bunch of gun control legislation in other states. “What legislation?” I wondered. Turns out that a handful of states were trying to pass laws requiring background checks for gun owners (at least one of which was as short as 10 days). I wondered how this could be different than the background checks that they already required. So I did some research. They didn’t require background checks. At all. For any weapons purchases. I was baffled.
I’ve since had conversations with my father who is also an avid, albeit slightly less informed, gun owner. He easily buys into the NRA rhetoric that Obama and Hillary Clinton want to take all our guns away. When he hears about “new” restrictions on gun or ammo ownership, he’s convinced that his second amendment rights are eroding right before his eyes. But the fact is, these things he thinks he’s losing? He’s never had them. At least not in the last 30 or 40 years. That vast majority of these are not new regulations to people in California or similar states.
Conveniently, a slightly less strict state borders California. Nevada. While it’s not the wild west lawlessness that you see in some states, Nevada does have some cleaning up to do in terms of making their gun laws more “common sense” and safe.
Question 1 on this year’s Nevada state ballot is directed at guns. It’s a new law that requires background checks on new gun purchases. There are still a couple of loopholes, but at least it’s a law. There’s also some language about punishments for specific offenses and somewhat broadly defines what an “illegal transfer” would be.
In come the gun lobbyists. The “con” ad campaign essentially is a 15 second spot that runs as follows:
“Question 1 punishes well meaning Nevada gun owners.
Loan a gun to your cousin? Jail!
Loan a gun to your neighbor? Jail!”
lolwut!? You’re pissed because a “well meaning” gun owner can no longer just loan his gun to his cousin or neighbor? I’ve had guns for every single day of life that I can remember in 30-some-odd years. We have NEVER just had our neighbor come over and be all like, “‘Scuse me, neighbor, mightn’t I borrow a gun and some bullets? I’m a little short.”
No. Shut up. If your cousin or neighbor want to shoot your gun, be a responsible damn gun owner and go shooting with them. What the hell?
YoungMelanin 