I was talking to a friend of mine and we got on the topic of gun control. Now, she's as strongly liberal as I am strongly conservative, and a lot of times she says things that I just ignore. I know I'm right and she knows I'm wrong and we get along great. However, this time...
She said, “Those people put their constitutional rights ahead of the safety of their children.”
I was so stunned that my brain went blank and I couldn't say anything. Because my constitutional rights ARE all about the safety of the children.
In most of the world, he who has the guns makes the rules.
In most of the world, children live in constant terror of being killed, maimed, raped, or taken from their parents to serve in brothels or armies, because they have no rights. Weapons belong only to the strong.
Our ancestors, the men we call the Founding Fathers, came from a world where that was precisely the case. Where you had no right to be armed, and anyone who had weapons was automatically the master. Where you obeyed a soldier or a policeman without question because he could kill and you had no recourse.
The Founding Fathers created a system of armed peasantry precisely to prevent this kind of abuse. They came from a world where the strong could force the press to write or not write, or eliminate it entirely, on a whim. Because they had the weapons. Thus, freedom of the press.
They came from a world where the strong determined where you would worship, and how, or if, and they could enforce that with their armies. Because they had the weapons. Thus, freedom of religion.
They came from a world where the judges and courts were owned by the rich and laws served only the powerful. They created a system of thirds—executive, judicial, legislative—where each part has control over the others and none can bully or demean. And none had weapons. Weapons were the province of the people.
Most of the world is still there. Our ancestors, for the most part, came here because their children would be SAFE from that. Where the judges were impartial and a man was allowed to defend his family.
There are people out there who want to take that away. “Save the children,” they shout, but it's not about the children. The children are a convenient handle that they can use to force disarmament.
It's not about the children. It's about power. Because all over the world, he who has the weapons has the power. Those who want us disarmed want that power. Save the children? The constitution is all about saving the children. The right to bear arms was always, and remains, about the right to self defense.
If they got the guns, which they have stated is the ultimate goal, it wouldn't stop there. Because people have been killed with rocks and clubs and knives much longer than guns have existed. “Save the children,” they'll scream as the demand that all knives be turned in. Then what? Rocks? Once a right is lost, only blood will bring it back.
It's all about power. If we give in on one point they will push harder until they have what they want, which is a completely controlled and helpless populace who will do what they're told.
Because someone else holds the weapons.
It's funny: I was thinking something similar, and yet I went in a very different direction with it. With several conservative candidates stating, in effect, "These things happen" I was reminded of despotic leaders in third world countries who live in their palatial homes in luxury and take no responsibility for the raging violence in their countries.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way the government is going to take guns out of the hands of the populace, but I strongly believe there are certain types of guns that should never so easily available to the public that I can walk into the Walmart and walk out with one.
It is not a slippery slope toward confiscating all guns and knives and rocks. It's a matter of common sense laws, enforcing those laws, and closing loopholes.
Because right now we ARE a controlled and helpless populace who can be slaughtered on any given day in public places that used to be safe while our leaders hide behind their security forces and mouth sympathetic words. Just like the leaders in, oh, name any third world country where people are shot by unchecked criminals with weapons of warfare.
Just an alternate way to look at it.
And yet they have said that this is precisely their goal--all guns, gone. Guns only in the hands of the government. If you're talking about assault weapons, they're already illegal. Oh, and "Well, once we have the guns everyone will be safe." Want to bet? Look at other countries which have confiscated guns, particularly Britain with their current "Turn in your knives" campaign. Suddenly knife murders skyrocket. It isn't the gun that's the problem--it's the intent, the feeling that someone else has something you want and it's your right to take it, or the idea that this person deserves to die. Until those attitudes go away, there is no curbing the violent impulses that result in murder. Until that point, removing the guns only leaves the guns (and other weapons) in the hands of the criminals, and leaves everyone else with no form of self defense. It actually criminalizes anyone who tries to defend themselves. Disarming the law abiding isn't the answer.
Delete