Guns, Abortion, and the Constitution

Guns, Abortions, and the Constitution

There are restrictions that the governments have imposed on women‘s bodies, especially in the constitutionally protected right of women to control pregnancies.  I believe that a woman should have the right to decide with her doctor what is to be done without the interference of governments. When I see the protesters at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Worcester, I am not happy. I am not happy that women in our society are placed in the position of tough decision about their health. I am working for a society that treats women and all of us in a more respectful way.

I do not believe that men have the right to kill people without government intervention and prevention. There is no protection in the Constitution for the massacre that has taken place. The Constitution was not written to protect mass killers of any sort. The document should be amended to make this clearer.

 While listening to talk radio, a caller said that the same restrictions applied to women and their health should be applied to men and their guns.  The basis for this is that almost all of the killings done by guns are done by men.

Restrictions would not be imposed on men and their guns as a public safety issue. It would be imposed as an issue of public morality.  We strive to be less of a “wild west “society and more of a society based on gun less resolution of problems among individuals. There is no need to justify this public morality as it is self evident.  There is no need to justify moving away from the morality of the Nineteenth Century to the saner morality for the Twenty First Century.

For women who are pregnant there are laws restricting Planned Parenthood and other clinics: some clinics are required to meet the standards of a hospital for emergency admittance. There are no emergency admittance at clinics; this is just pretext.

For men who own or want to buy guns there should be laws restricting gun stores standards of sale including updated electronic data bases for non eligible purchasers of guns and ammunition. There should be created a cause for civil action for harm done by any weapon sold to a purchaser who was not eligible for a purchase of guns and ammunition.

The other requirements for men should be:

1.  Mandatory safety training every two years, including a video of harm done by guns.

2. Proof of proper storage capacity, including locked cabinets and trigger locks

3. Proof the purchaser is not a danger to himself or to others. This would be a certificate from a doctor that the purchaser is not suffering from impulse control issues of any sort.

 4. Proof of no violent criminal activity in last 10 years, including arrests.

    5. A waiting period consisting of the gun store verification of certificates and proof and the local police verification of the same documents.

   6. A tax on guns and ammunition dedicated to the mitigation of harm of gun violence victims and guns safety programs, etc.

   7.  Criminal penalties for the falsification of specific documents and the failure of gun shops to properly apply certificates and waiting periods.

The new gun range in Worcester should check the certificates and proof of eligibility for each gun owner using the facility.

What comes to mind is the old saying “what is good for the goose is good for the gander”.  The morality of gun restriction is self evidently good for us all except the gunmen.