Justice & Law Quote by Michael Gartner

The sentence is built like a prosecutor’s closing argument: narrow the “reasonable” category to two sanctioned roles, then pile on verbs until “handgun” feels less like an object and more like a contaminant. “Buy, to own, to have, to use” is deliberately redundant, a rhythmic drumbeat meant to collapse the usual gun-rights distinctions (purchase vs. possession vs. carry) into one moral verdict. Gartner isn’t bargaining with policy details; he’s trying to make the very presence of civilian handguns sound indefensible.

The key move is his definition of legitimacy. By carving out police and military, he treats violence as a state function, not an individual one. That’s not just a safety argument; it’s a theory of citizenship. Ordinary people don’t “need” the tool because the state is supposed to provide order, and anyone outside the uniform who wants a handgun is implied to be compensating for something darker: fear, vigilantism, aggression. The subtext is cultural, not merely legal: a handgun is framed as a symbol of private coercion.

Then comes the line that makes it journalist-sharp: “the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.” It’s a blunt admission that the obstacle isn’t public relations or incremental legislation, but the country’s foundational bargain. Gartner signals seriousness and impatience at once: stop pretending a workaround will solve it; fight on the actual terrain. In the larger American gun debate, that’s a provocation and a dare, calling out the gap between what reformers want and what the Second Amendment currently permits.