Our angry little poem for today (Feb 3 2013) is entitled: Posted on February 3, 2013 by OneSmallVoice Are your thoughts your own? if your feelings about firearm control remain unaffected still perhaps your thoughts aren’t you own (Video to follow…) Share this:FacebookTwitterEmailPrintLike this:Like Loading... Related
Most people tend to change like a windsock, so long as it’s within the realm of their political party’s boundaries. I’d venture to say that most people’s political ideologies are rarely their own. With reference to gun control, feelings are certainly important. But even more important, must be the logical considerations of our inherent Constitutional Rights, coupled with reasonable regulations (as all rights are subject to). People who think that guns are free from regulation, are of no more use than those who think there is no right to bear arms.
While at one time, I agreed with you. (And even owned guns) I’m not so sure I agree now. Given the violence over the past few years, I’ve begun to question the wisdom of the second amendment.
While the “Right to keep and bear arms” is in the Constitution, let’s not forget that the document was written over 200 years ago by people who thought slavery was okay and only allowed white male properly owners to vote.
Completely understandable to feel that way. But like I mentioned, using logic and examining the spirit and intent of our freedoms, is just as important, if not more so.
Decisions involving the removal of natural rights, should not be founded on emotions from either side. Seeing as crime in the US has been steadily falling for decades, it has a lot more to do with the modern age of instantaneous communication, than anything else. Things are actually getting better, but b/c we are saturated with sensationalism in media, it seems completely opposite. I’d further argue that should we really be concerned with the sanctity of human life more than anything, maybe we should address any one of the approximate 14 higher causes of death than both gun related homicides and inadvertent gun accidents (combined). Most on the list are highly preventable.
Just consider the consequences you can create with the “200 year old” argument. If you believe any of the specific freedoms under the Bill of Rights are obsolete, and free to be completely done away with, then don’t be upset when you see others fall by the wayside under the guise of the same argument. After all, things change.
All freedoms can and should be regulated to the minimal extent necessary. This includes guns, which are not and should not be free from regulation.
Yes, there were plenty of racist, slave owning whites, that founded our government. But you can’t use that to do away with the 2nd Amendment, unless you accept that same argument to do away with any, and/or all the rest. While that argument of misdirection or deflection uses a valid point, it doesn’t correlate in any way to the direct topic of discussion. It is however a very common and masterful move in debate, when executed without anyone noticing.
In closing, I’m not declaring my opinion to be the “way it is”, it is merely that (my opinion).
I cannot concede the assumption that gun ownership is a “natural right”. While there are, in my opinion, some natural rights I have become skeptical that access to a firearm qualifies.
I would also argue that the right to keep and bear is an amendment and, like all amendments, subject to review and change. Our Constitutional has been amended (and re-amended) over the years and the republic still stands. One of the primary strengths of the Constitution is that it is a living changing document.
Furthermore, by comments are not simply debate tactics, but actual ideas based upon my notion of responsible thought. Hence, I do not accept your classification. Though, I do appreciate your courtesy.
The fact that we can engage in civil discussion indicates that the experiment continues to work.