This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I took a risk the other day and wrote about gun control, a risk, not because I don’t favor aggressive gun control – I do – but because the challenge of controlling guns seems impossible, even after the tragic Uvalde shooting.

Many Republicans just refuse to consider reasonable gun control, no more obvious that former president Donald Trump and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz who had the temerity to appear at the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association (NRA) only days after Uvalde and only a couple hundred miles away from the site of the tragedy.

They argued, of course, against gun control.

I also was chagrined to note that likely unaffiliated candidate for Oregon governor, Betsy Johnson, took to the podium at a meeting of TEDxPortland, a non-profit organization, to tout her opposition to gun control.  [The organization, by the way, came under criticism for appearing to violate its non-profit status by hosting Johnson, a political figure.]

She drew jeers and boos for her position and, frankly, I, a retired lobbyist, had forgotten Johnson’s votes against gun control.  I hope she reconsiders her blanket opposition in light of Uvalde, which adds to the spate of gun tragedies in this country.

But, by contrast, here’s just a bit of good news.

In the Washington Post, columnist Kathleen Parker made this argument:

“Several things can be done that could reduce the bloodshed:  Deeper background checks; ‘red-flag’ laws allowing law enforcement officers with a court order to seize guns from someone considered a danger to themselves or others; closing gun show loopholes; and maybe banning kids from buying assault weapons.  All of these would help.”

Then, Parker made another great point, especially for me, a person who likes words and often says that “words matter.”

“As a first step,” Parker wrote, “we should change the name of the mission from gun control to gun safety.  ‘Control’ is a trigger for resistance when safety is what we’re really talking about.

“Words matter.  Maybe some people could be more open to compromise and change if they weren’t immediately put on the defensive.”

Parker goes on to contend that “the predictable constitutional arguments, meanwhile, have become offensive.  Yes, the Founding Fathers were concerned about another British invasion, and made it possible for early colonists to arm themselves in defense of their country.

“But those who wrote the Second Amendment in the 18th century could not have envisioned how their perfectly reasonable intentions would be distorted 235 years later — or how 18-year-olds would be able to buy and carry assault weapons meant for a modern battlefield into grade-school classrooms.

“There’s a galaxy of difference between a musket and an AR-15.  It’s time to remove these instruments of mass murder from the marketplace once and for all.

“We might not stop the next massacre, but we can stop making it so easy.”

Parker is right.

I am not competent to analyze the depths of how the Second Amendment to the Constitution has been interpreted in this country, but I am competent to repeat its brief text:

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Now, 235 years after the words were drafted, let’s limit the “right to bear the arms” to those who can be called “militia.”  Reasonable?  Yes.

GUN SAFETY matters!

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy agrees, even as his voice rises with emotion and incredulity:

“What are we doing?” he asks his colleagues.   “Why do you go through all the hassle of getting this job, of putting yourself in a position of authority if the answer is to do nothing as the slaughter increases, as our kids run for their lives?”