A Sensible Gun Policy

 People seem incapable of coming to a logical solution to our national gun problem.  Our political system has broken down.  The right to bear arms is encoded within our constitution. Okay.  But what are "arms"?  Are they the muskets and front loaded pistols used at the time the Constitution was written?  Does the right to bear arms forbid our citizens from protecting them selves from people who would kill others with weapons often more powerful than those carried by our law enforcement officers?

Rights can be circumscribed.  Anyone can drive a car,  However, we do put limits on that right.  Children below a certain age are not allowed to drive.  People with inadequate eyesight are not permitted to drive.  Why not circumscribe the rights of certain people to possess a gun?

The mechanism for keeping weapons away from questionable individuals would be through licensing.  To drive a vehicle, you need a license. To hunt you need a license.  Why not license guns?  To get a gun license, you would need to be of a certain age.  Also, just as in the case, of vehicles and other licenses, you would need to pay a fee.  Your license should show the seller, the period when the license was issued and the date when the license has to be renewed.  Also, to obtain the license you would have to pass a weapons test.  Assault rifles would only be licensed to individuals with special requirements for such a weapon.

One other requirement that might be considered is to require a sponsor for a buyer to receive a license. 

America also needs another gun owners association.  An association that might be considered is the Responsible Gun Owners Association (RGO).  Why should the venal NRA be the only voice for gun owners.

Owning an unregistered gun should be made criminal.  And special penalties should be imposed on owners of "ghost" guns.

Why not?  Our constitution is being wrongly interpreted if it results in too frequent murder of our children by some deranged individual.

Muslim Xenophobia

 Let's first establish what a phobia is.  It's an unreasonable fear of something or other.  If I see a man walking a large dog.  I have little fear.  But should the dog turn and look at me and then begin to growl and pull at the leash.  I now do begin to experience fear.  Such fear is not unreasonable.  It is not phobic.

However, a lady sitting in the park with a small lap dog and smiling as small children walk by, should not arose fear.  Nevertheless, people phobic regarding dogs might well begin to show signs of panic at the sight of the dog.

Bigots who hate Blacks or Jews are not phobic.  They're bigoted and may be described as racist or or anti-Semitic,

So what's an Islamophobe?  Is it someone with an unreasonable fear of Muslims?  That's not what I see.  Is it someone who finds Muslims occasionally disagreeable?  Yes, such people do exist?  But they don't shudder in fear.  They may dislike Muslims, as racists dislike Backs.  But that's not being phobic.  That's being anti-Islamic.

So why do Islamic groups like CAIR (Committee on American Islamic Relations) hurl this word against those who have a problem with certain aspects of Islam found among some Muslims but happily not among all Muslims.

Muslims who toss about the word, Islamophobia, generally are guided by the same hatred that guides the Muslim Brotherhood, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and murdered Israeli athletes in Munich.  Happily such Muslims don't represent all of Islam.  They can, however, be found among  Palestinians and organizations that represent them here in America.  Happily it's not universal among Muslims.

Thankfully, the Abraham Accords ended the belief that all Muslims and Muslim nations are lined up with the Muslim Brotherhood.  True, there are parts of the world world where a hatred of Christians and Jews persists.  Fortunately this hatred is not carried by all Muslims.