The Foreign Minister has evidently been hearing rumors from the Maximum Leader that their liberal anti-NRA comrade has become a death-dealing trigger-happy mass murderer.

Yes, my friend, it is true. While not quite up to world-record category, I have ended six lives over the last few months with my trusty 306. Bwa-ha-ha-ha.

However, in the best tradition of the Maximum Leader, I will refuse to acknowledge that my present actions in any way contradict my previously espoused positions.

Let me ’splain.

Back in college, the Foreign Minister and I engaged in regular debates over gun control legislation. Since college and his acquisition of firearms, the Maximum Leader has frequently put in his pro-gun two cents.

I held that handgun control was a GOOD thing. I advocated the use of shotguns for home defense since you are more likely to hit your target while stressed, deter the need to shoot, and were unlikely to send a round through the wall, across the street, through another wall and into the head of a seven-year old snug in her bed.

I strongly disagreed with the argument that anyone had a RIGHT to own weapons. It seems to me that anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the English language could parse the sentence “A WELL-REGULATED militia being necessary to the security of a free State the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Historically speaking, arguing that the militia consisted of all free men was bunk; the “well-regulated” portion of the phrase was meant to directly contradict this. The Founding Fathers had no truck with the whole Nathaniel Bacon/Daniel Shays type of nonsense. The occasional idiotic Jeffersonian quip about the tree of liberty aside, the geniuses who created our nation and form of government did so in part to prevent citizens with guns from challenging the sovereignty of the government.

Additionally, the courts had always agreed with me. As I noted, the people who get to interpret the meaning of the Constitution wear black robes, not NRA buttons. No court had ever overturned gun-restrictions based on the Second Amendment, the pro-gun folks always challenged using other issues because using the Second Amendment was a sure loser. (Note: Last year, I had to send the Maximum Leader a congratulatory note; an appeals court actually overturned a gun law on the basis of the Second Amendment. Since I support the rule of law, I have to now concede that the Second Amendment does give some protections to an individual’s right to own firearms)

My argument wasn’t necessarily against guns. It was that gun laws should be judged on the basis of efficacy rather than in some silly “It’s mah raigh” context. Quite clearly, I believed, private ownership of weapons is not a right. Until recently, the courts had agreed with me.
So I had no problem with gun registration. What’s the big deal? (NRA parrots: “The first thing the Nazis did was to register gun owners.” MOA: “Gosh, you’re right. We also better make sure the trains don’t ever run on time!”)

I had no problem with limits on handguns other than a concern that enforcement was impractical — how do you get the millions of handguns off the streets?

I had no problem with banning assault rifles, machine guns and anti-tank weapons.

I also did not see the recreation argument as being sufficient in and of itself. If a gun law would effectively save lives, the fact that the Foreign Minister liked to light things up with his Nazi machinegun (and let’s face it; machinegunning targets is way cool!) isn’t a sufficient reason to allow bad folks to kill people with the same weapon. When lives are weighed against shits-and-grins, I’ll take lives any day as a matter of social policy. Convince me that banning machineguns won’t really save lives, and then the enjoyment factor will win out. My position is that people should argue the gun issue on the merits of the impact of particular laws. I guess a good analogy would be the fact that even though the Big Hominid enjoys publicly defecating in mall food courts, public health concerns outweigh his personal satisfaction and if he indulges in his hobby the government will lock him up.

So, as a result, I tend to believe in the use of shotguns for home defense. I have also come to see that rifles are a useful tool for farmers. I can see banning rifles in urban areas since I can envision no non-anti-personal use for a rifle in an urban area. (Check out the multiple negatives in that sentence! Weep, English major, weep!)

However, as a farmer, my 306 is a useful tool. Groundhogs are bad for pasture they dig holes that can break the legs of cattle. While I personally think groundhogs are cute, if they threaten my animals, I’m going to do them in.

The same thing is true with roaming dogs. I am very sorry that my irrational distaste for shooting a poultry-chasing dog resulted in the loss of one of my guinea hens. If I had shot the dog on the first visit (as was my legal right) instead of returning it to the owner, the second fatal visit would not have occurred. I (hope) I won’t make that mistake again.

I use the rifle most often to protect my orchard, small berry planting, and vineyard. These items are deer magnets and if I left them unprotected, I would in short order lose thousands of dollars worth of plantings and considerable amounts of labor.

I first tried to keep the deer out using a slant fence that screws up the depth perception of deer. The Maximum Leader and his family helped my father and I put the slant fence together, a very laborious and expensive proposition. I then electrified the fence. This worked for a little over a year. At that point, some deer found the weak point in the fence, the unslanted truck gate. I had some serious damage. As a commercial grower, I called the game warden and he came out and gave me a kill permit to protect my crops. The rifle, therefore, is a useful tool.

That being sad, I don’t want yahoos running around with loaded weapons even if they are sons of the soil. I am very careful with every shot I take, I make sure that even if I miss (not a problem with a scope but it was a problem when I was using the open-sighted unzeroed weapons I borrowed from the Maximum Leader and the Foreign Minister) the round will not travel and accidentally kill a neighbor. There are plenty of people who are not that careful. As my father often says, you can’t legislate against stupidity. So if the government required me to take a gun safety course as a prerequisite to owning a rifle, I would not object. In fact, in Virginia you are required to take a gun safety course before you get a hunting license (but if you are only hunting on your land you do not need a license).

I have killed six deer over the last few months. I don’t necessarily enjoy the killing part but I have come to take a certain pride in the fact that my kills have been instant and the deer didn’t suffer. I guess there is a certain enjoyment in the technical aspect of the achievement, shot placement, etc. I also enjoyed serving venison at a big family dinner, just as with fish, it always tastes better when you caught it yourself. Finally, it is nice to donate meat to food pantries.

So, to some it all up:

Yes, my friends, I am using a firearm on a regular basis.

BUT

I still believe in rational gun control if it means that lives will be saved.

– Minister of Agriculture