I apologize for this break in my usually congenial blog, but times are tough and things need to be said, by me to you. After the events on Monday I think my views on gun control have taken a really abrupt turn. I grew up in Virginia and I know quite a few people who own guns, who shoot guns and who hunt with guns- both friends and family. Although I've never been all too interested in guns I never thought I should take the right to bare arms away from anyone who was. Living in a free society holds many contradictions. Just because I don't believe you should have a gun doesn't mean you are not allowed to hold a differing opinion.
A person can be a vegetarian AND be ProChoice. You could see that as a contradiction or you might not, it depends on your beliefs really. Here in America we're allowed to have differing view points and as long as yours don't step on other people, that's fine. We have an obligation to put up with and respect differing opinions so that our opinions and beliefs can have room. You give a little, you get a lot. Really you do. But I think it's time to seriously reevaluate gun legislation. I realize that if the populace was a well-armed populace it would be able to defend itself against crazies with guns. On the other hand, if we gave up our rights to guns and maybe made gun laws a lot more stringent we wouldn't need guns to protect ourselves. Make sense? No? You're a sportsman and should be allowed to follow your passion. Then, let's put it a different way.
No other sport offers it's participant a piece of equipment, that when used in the manner it was originally intended, the ability to kill innocent people. If you are truly a sportsman, with an honest to God passion why would you be opposed to stict gun laws? You respect your gun don't you? You realize their potential? That's why you like them, right? They are deadly and are a means of destruction. There is no gun built with the intent of creating anything but harm. If there was an outbreak of hockey stick-related mass murders, would we make hockey sticks harder to get? Probably. Did you know that full faced ski-masks are illegal? Because, they are.
So, you think that people will kill without guns? Of course they will. But, you know what they won't do without guns? They will NOT go on a killing spree. A knife wielding maniac can't do what happened in Virgina Tech. A man with a chainsaw will not be able to sit in a clock tower and be able to rain bullets on unsuspecting people. These things happen and continue to happen. Something needs to change. Does you passion for guns matter more to you than your family and the safety of millions? What's to stop someone from coming into your children's school and taking them from you? Do you suggest we arm elementary school teachers and teach them marksmanship? What's to stop someone from coming into your office and shooting you where you sit, reading this slightly inflammatory blog? Gun in your desk? Good idea.
Something needs to change. What is wrong with us that we cling to this right so desperately even in the face of so many events that say it's wrong? Why does empirical evidence not even phase us? I think it's time the gun lobby step down. It's time for the NRA to hear that what they're doing is actually absurd.
Lilya, my volunteer was in today. She kept asking me why Virginia let's people buy guns so easily. She asked why people were allowed to buy hand guns. "You can't hunt with that? Why do you need that?" I had no answer. I have no answer. Do you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
You make an excellent point about not only the -use- of hunting weapons, but the intent that is inherent to their very existence--an ability to kill. Now, as a vegetarian that has no problem killing animals, that gives even me pause. Do we have the right to an ability to kill?
Courts tend to uphold our right to defend ourselves and the livelihood of our families when threatened, a rather basic human instinct. That's certainly not the same thing as a right to kill, but it's certainly understood as a justification for killing.
But, increasingly, even that right--killing in self-defense--finds itself questioned. Were there other options? Why were they not used? Was the force excessive? Is this person trained to kill? Why are they trained to kill?
So, if we're going to limit the ways that we can kill to prevent being killed, why are we so squeamish about limiting the ways in which we actually kill?
I understand the right to bear arms--it's one of the few things in the Constitution that seems to me to apply today as much as it did at the time it was written, and will apply, I imagine, into the foreseeable future.
But if we're going to limit the basic, primal human right to kill in self-defense (presumably because we are such an enlightened civilization), then the even more basic, primal-er "right" to kill really ought to be questioned as well. We've trampled on the rest of the Constitution. Why stop now?
i'm not sure i think we should completely take away the ability to own firearms. i think, if you want to own a gun, you should have to work for it. like three months of training, followed by an exam and possibly a letter of intent. it should be harder to do than getting a driver's liscense.
Oh, I'm totally signed up for that. I'm not for an outright ban on guns, but if we can make doctors go to school for 25 years to save lives, we can damn well make someone wait a month to get a gun.
As Mint and I discussed last night--anyone who NEEDS a gun tomorrow... simply cannot be up to anything good.
Besides, think of all the incredible buracracy a month-long waiting period to get a gun would create. Talk about creating jobs and helping the economy!
Post a Comment