Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Guns. Weapons, arms, whatever term I choose, most of you had
a reaction to that first word. Some of you thought, “hell yeah!”, while some of
you thought, “We need to do something about them.” So, what is the answer here?
Most of us think we know. We are probably convinced that either, nothing needs
to be done, in fact more people need to own them, while others believe there
should be fewer owned under tighter restrictions.
Meanwhile, the debate over this issue caused gun company
stocks to peak, even as Obama’s speech was broadcast to the nation. There is a
divide between us. There are few that have a third opinion, but I would like to
discuss this in a reasonable tone and share some thoughts I have had, so
please, don’t take this post and turn it into a flame war. Be civil. Express
ideas in clear, less than obscene English and let people decide. Whatever your
view point, I hope you agree that all humans deserve the sanctity of their own
thoughts and should not be judged based on thoughts, but deeds.
Amendment
II
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.
This piece of legislation, known as the second amendment to
the Constitution of the United States of America, has been hotly contested in
recent years, and to a lesser extent, throughout our history, especially since
the last half of the twentieth century. To many, it represents a clear edict
preventing congress from interfering with their rights to own weaponry
privately. Others view the context of militia service as essential and would
rather not have private gun ownership.
Then, there’s the debate over what arms should be included.
Most sane individuals would prefer their neighbors not be allowed to hold
nuclear arms, for example, but might argue in favor of nearly everything up to
a heavy tank. Others feel strongly that capacity, range, velocity, rate of fire
and other factors should be clearly legislated and restricted.
Here is my own take
on this
I’ll keep it brief. From my own reading of history, I find
it incredible that we not understand that a part of what was intended by this
amendment was the right to protect one’s self from enemies foreign and
domestic, including, if need be, one’s own government. After all, these men had
just witnessed a bloody war to set their fellow countrymen free from a tyrannical
government, and restrictions on arms had played a part in it on several
occasions.
I also happen to believe in the sanctity of all human life.
This does not mean I believe that self-defense is never an adequate defense for
the taking of life, I do. There are times when it is necessary, or at the
least, expedient. In my own life, I will strive to find other means, whenever
possible, to deal with situations, rather than resorting to physical force, or
violence of any kind, whether involving guns or not. This is my choice and I
believe reasonable people agree with me that the taking of human life should
never be a first resort. I stand by the principle of non-aggression, to the
best of my understanding of it.
I believe we were
intended to have the right to own personal armaments
I think the right to self-defense is an inherent human
right, that ought not be abridged. I believe that the American Constitution
speaks to this and prohibits congress from passing laws to prevent the keeping
of arms and that the states have a responsibility to ensure this right is protected
as well.
That being said,
there are things that I do not agree with
1.
Many, primarily on the political right, seem to
take this as a right that should be paraded and taken for granted. I do not
think that it should be taken lightly, or made a joke. I think the ability to
take human life represented by gun ownership should be taken seriously. I think
it is a heavy responsibility that requires thought and careful consideration
for each person.
2.
Many, primarily on the political left, seem to
think that a gun, in and of itself, represents the worst kind of evil to be
found in human society. They act as if the mere presence of the weapon puts
them at great personal risk. They have an unhealthy fear that mirrors the lack
of respect often shown from the right, in opposite terms.
3.
There is a context expressed in the
constitution, and even during the revolution, weapons for militia use were
often restricted and kept in an armory. It was common for towns to have rules
regarding the use and carrying of guns. Several western towns, Dodge City
Kansas, most notably, were famous for “check your guns at the door” laws that
prevented the open carrying of firearms to reduce public friction. To pretend
that everyone was willy nilly in favor of personal arsenals being toted through
the grocery store in times gone by is incorrect.
4.
I personally do not trust the federal government
to make decisions about who should and should not be armed. I think they very
likely have ulterior motives for restricting the purchase, ownership and use of
arms. They have proven, on regular occasions to not have the best interest of
their citizens at heart, and to not be good judges of character, or even men
and women of high moral character themselves.
5.
Violence begets violence and approaching this as
something to be shoved in anyone’s face on either side is a less than
thoughtful approach which is likely to end poorly for all of us. Gun owners
should be the first to admit that a firearm is a weighty responsibility and
that there is a lot of inherent risk in the handling of them. That being said,
gun control supporters should probably take the time to become more familiar
with the thing they claim to fight against. They can be handled responsibly and
when used correctly are a tremendous deterrent to violence, or the escalation
of violence.
6.
Any time one side of argument (the fed and our
local and state police forces) wants to increase its own armament, while
reducing the armament of those that they might be called to use their armament
against, it should give us pause. In recent years, we have started a very
public debate about police violence, which appears to be escalating. While I
would hate to see it escalated further, at the time when a potential enemy is
arming themselves, is not the time to reduce your own defenses.
7.
We cannot continue to ignore the fact that the
constitution’s power has been eroded. Now, I am not one who thinks that this
document provides a magic barrier to protect all liberties. It does not. It is
simply an agreement, signed by men who are long dead and gone. It has served us
well in many ways and failed us in others. It is not perfect. But, it is the
foundation of our legal and political systems. It has stood as the final
arbiter of disputes between government and people for over 200 years and as
such, it needs to be respected and used properly. If we want our society to
look different than it does, or has, that can be done, and done legitimately,
but it needs to be done calmly, by cool heads. Simply piling unconstitutional
laws and precedents on top of things, until the truth is obfuscated is not the
answer, for either side.
I do not know the
answer
I, like all of you, want myself, my family and my friends to
live safely in a world where violence is rare. I would love to never open my
browser to find that the world has been tipped on its axis by someone with guns
again, especially when children are involved.
If I believed that ridding the world of guns could achieve
this, I would be the first to support it. I am no fan of violence and I abhor
much of what my government does in my name, for my supposed safety. If I thought
we could rid the world of all weapons tomorrow that would be glorious. I don’t.
Even if it were possible to remove all of the guns from the
world, I don’t think legislation could ever make it happen.
We have a serious
lack of understanding regarding the nature of laws
Laws are not barriers to behavior, at all. They can serve to
deter those inclined to heed them. They are better than allowing despots total
control with no standard. They provide some basis of understanding between
people of reason that want to live in peace. In our country, they are also
supposed to provide some barriers between government regulation and the liberty
of the people. As my Grandfather once told me, “Locks just keep honest people
honest.” In other words, those inclined to harm, or defraud others will do so,
regardless of the law.
No law provides a shield from harm. It can provide for
security measures, one of which is self-defense through use of arms. It can
provide a system for determining guilt or innocence and a framework for
punishing those that choose to transgress them. But a law can never prevent an
act, or make the repercussions of that act disappear, and they only have the
force we give them by our adherence to them.
As we move into a more and more regulated society, we move
away from the liberty provided to original Americans. As each piece of our
personal freedom is eroded, it is added to the growing power of a state that
becomes more and more distant from its people. In this setting, when so many
laws are present, all of our laws lose efficacy by the simple fact that they
cannot all be enforced equally all of the time.
We should be careful
of reducing each other’s freedoms
With every restriction we place on another human life, we
restrict ourselves in that same measure and give just a bit more of autonomy to
the state. Even when we seek to do something good, such as slowing or ending
violence (something I think everyone agrees is a good thing) we can have
unintended consequences.
Even something as simple as jailing even one single person
places a restriction on at least one other, who must now spend their time
enforcing that incarceration and is not available to contribute in our
community in the same way they might have if the law were never transgressed.
As we make choices about what restrictions we are willing to accept and which
are too onerous, we should be careful in our responses to each other.
With every instance of anger over taking our better selves
and producing rage, we reinforce habits that all of us can recognize as
harmful, until our nature changes to one of hate and distrust for those we
disagree with. This can happen even when our motives are pure. By escalating
every conversation to the point of conflict, we create a culture of distrust
and hatred, of intolerance and cruelty that leads us to not just disagree, but
to genuinely not care about anyone else’s point of view.
We are at a tipping
point in our history
It is up to us what happens next. None of what we have done
is irreconcilable, but that may not always be the case. If you read accounts of
what led up to the revolution, or the civil war, it is easy to draw parallels
to the years prior to military violence erupting and today. Tensions are high.
History shows that one conflict can lead to the unleashing of emotions that
cannot be “put back in the bottle” so to speak.
As for me, I can be just an inflammatory as the next guy. I
try to aim it at people who primarily agree with me, to show them when they are
not taking another’s point of view seriously. But, I am just as guilty of
adding fuel to the fire as anyone. In recent days, I have begun to rethink
that. I am trying to find ways to challenge lack of understanding while
promoting peaceful exchange.
In most cases, we are not that far apart from each other in
our understanding of what we ultimately want. We want a world where success is
possible, where personal freedom is protected, where life is valued and selfish,
abusive excess is rare. This can never happen as long as we see ourselves as
two sides of a coin, as diametrically opposed to each other.
We need to look at
desired outcomes
Rather than fighting and debating tactics, perhaps if we
really started telling the story of the world we want to see, we might be
surprised by how much we agree on. Right now, we operate in a very narrow
window of possibilities, where oppositional thinking pits us against each
other. (if you don’t agree with me, you must agree with them) But, in reality,
the ways forward are limitless.
Imagine the world the way you want it to be and try letting
go of the way to get there. It’s tough. We all think we know what should
happen. But, if we can strive to create the circumstances we want to live in,
while allowing others to create theirs, maybe we can find a new way of settling
our disagreements. By sharing our dream of the world we want, and finding those
common threads, maybe we can all find some ways to work together.
Let’s agree to do
this
Let’s try to be kind. Everyone has a hard life. Let’s strive
not to escalate conflict, whenever possible. Let’s fight for what we believe in
with well-reasoned arguments and proposals of real solutions, instead of
political diatribes and platitudes. Let’s think for ourselves and speak from
the heart about how we can make the world a better place and let’s agree to
listen and really hear someone out, then decide whether we agree or not, rather
than bring all of our preconceptions into every single argument. You can always
get angry later, but once you have lost your cool, it is often too late to go
back.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(Atom)
About Me
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
-
Since becoming an ex-church member through the modern wonder of email excommunication I have had time to catch up on some reading. One of ... -
What is it about poverty that scares people? Really? I have been poor my entire life. Most people don't know how poor. You see, unlik...
I wrote a Book, here it is!
0 comments:
Post a Comment