Balance of Power by Richard North Patterson: Gun Rights vs Control

As a Republican and NRA member, I have had one position on gun rights - the 2nd Amendment rules! I grew up in a family of gun owners, and I believe and will always believe in our right to bear arms.

I am also a person who prides herself on the ability to continually learn, and to always review and understand the opposite side of any issue. As such, I picked up a copy of Balance of Power by Richard North Patterson over the weekend. I was amazed at how little of the complexity of this issue I had grasped prior to reading this well-done novel, and my eyes have been opened to just how black and white it is not.

This novel has more politics than plot, and can be downright laborious in some sections and overly melodramatic in others. Still other parts are incredibly well written and leave the reader on the edge of his or her chair. Overall, I really enjoyed it and felt that anyone who picks it up will be happy that they took the time to plow through the incredible amount of research and information compiled by Patterson.

Admittedly, this book is biased. In the afterword, Patterson admits to being a member of the Brady Commission and an avid gun control proponent. I do believe that Patterson did do a good job of presenting the arguments of the other side, although at times gun rights activists were made to look like simple minded right wing fanatics.

The story is the story of a fictious Democratic president and his wife, who are pro gun control. The First Lady's family is killed by an abusive spouse, with a weapon designed only to kill and bullets designed to inflict maximum damage. The SSA ( Sons of the Second Amendment - a thinly disguised depiction of the NRA), afraid of the damage to their cause quickly launches a rider to a Tort Reform Bill that would grant blanket immunity to all gun companies when their weapons are used to kill.

The remaining story is a web of political intrigue, blackmail, dirty politics and coercion that I really hope is not indicative of how Congress really operates - but given those listed as advisers to this book, I fear that it is.

The gun in this story was part of a stolen lot of guns, sold by a terrorist Militia member without a background check. The issue of gun shows, where guns can be sold without background checks was brought up over and over again.

The NRA has long since advocated RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. Why then, would they be opposed to background checks if it would keep guns out of the hands of murderers, felons, terrorists, gang members, and drug dealers - the very element it needs to politically disassociate from? Most of the gun owners I have been around believe strongely in these checks, as they really don't want to be associated with the crackpots and criminals.

However, with background checks comes the whole issue of registration. In 1975, U.S. Sen. James A. McClure (R-ID) said: "Gun registration is the first step toward ultimate and total confiscation, the first step in a complete destruction of a cornerstone of our Bill of Rights." (source, NRA website). This is the biggest fear ALL NRA members have and with good cause, Sarah Brady of the Brady Commission has already advocated gun ownership only on a "needs" basis. How would this "need" be established?

If there were no liberal threat to gun ownership, I believe that all gun owners would want registration as it does help law enforcement officers in locating weapons used in crimes. And we are all against crime.

I grew up in a family where guns were used as sport. Why deprive people of their fun? More seriously, people have the fundamental right to defend themselves. When this is taken away, we are in trouble.

After reviewing this issue more in depth, I DO agree that gun shows need better legislation and control. However, before this will happen, the liberals need to back off and find some way of convincing us that this is NOT the first step towards confiscation. Gun show dealers really SHOULD have the same restrictions as the guy who owns a shop. Otherwise, it is really not fair to the legitimate store owners who comply with regulations and work hard to support responsible gun ownership.

I was also quite concerned when I read these tidbits about terrorists taking advantage of our lax gun show laws:

• On September 10, 2001, just one day before the devastating attacks against the United States, Ali Boumelhem was convicted on a variety of weapons violations plus conspiracy to ship weapons to the terrorist organization Hezbollah in Lebanon. He and his brother Mohamed had purchased an arsenal of shotguns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, flash suppressors and assault weapons parts from Michigan gun shows without undergoing background checks.[8]

• On October 30, 2001, Muhammad Navid Asrar, an illegal Pakistani immigrant, was also convicted of weapons charges. Over the course of seven years, Asrar frequented gun shows, buying several weapons, allegedly to supply the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. He remains under investigation by a federal grand jury on suspicion of involvement with al-Qaeda.[9] Source - The Brady Commission

The second issue brought up in this story is that of combination locks and/or biometric locks. I personally wouldn't want to have to remember my combination when faced with a rapist! However, the idea of "smartguns" with biometric locks that open at the touch of a fingerprint is a good one. This would keep my gun from being taken and used against me, which is comforting. Biometrics is an expanding field, and very accurate. This year, a mandatory gun locks provision that required that dealers provide a method to lock or secure a gun was overturned. In my opinion, this is because the types of locks used here are antiquated - ready access to a self defense weapon is critical, otherwise the gun is useless.

The next issue is the issue of Saturday Night Specials and bullets designed to create fatal wounding. Where I grew up, the whole idea of a gun was to hit the target and hit it straight! If gunmakers make a weapon that is inaccurate and ends up killing someone, they should be liable for it. If they make a gun that is a responsible weapon and designed properly that is used in a crime, they should NOT be held responsible any more than GM should be held responsible in a drunk driving case.

I read that this year, the very bill that was mentioned in this book passed. It does have a rider that allows legitimate lawsuits to still take place, which is a good thing. Lawmakers are still fighting to declare this bill unconstitutional, and I don't think this issue is anywhere near being solved.

The solution is for both sides to recognize each others concerns. Gun owners should be free of the fear that their guns will be confiscated so that they can concentrate on education and legislature to make their guns safe, and to encourage responsibility. Once the issue of confiscation is removed, I believe they will be more open to rules designed to improve their public image by making guns safer. Gun companies be willing to forgo profits by the every growing gangs, terrorists and criminals in their customer base. Gun design should be a thing of pride, not "let's make a cheap inaccurate piece of crap criminals can afford".