Wednesday, July 5, 2006

“right to bear arms”? or right to ignor reality? and perhps join your very own subculture?

(This is a VERY rough draft of a smattering of thoughts related to gun control I never fully fleshed out and finalized. I'm sure full of typos and incomplete sentences and thoughts.)

What were our founding fathers hoping to encourage with our “right to bear arms”? Or should I say what were those responsible for the second amendment hoping for. Since the actual original deceleration of independence doesn’t cover this topic. Are they merely encouraging splinter groups, small interest groups, cultic gatherings, or how about simply small, harmless, well-meaning “subcultures of gun enthusiast”? That’s what the founding father wanted – a subculture of folks with a voice of the resounding voice of defending ones rights to boot.

Why is it significant that the supreme court recently chose to uphold a person’s right to bear arms when he chose to shoot two men seen burgling his neighbors home. Lucky for this man he chose to shoot these men on Texas soil, where a “Castle” law recently added providing even more licensing to those choosing to protect their home or the home of a neighbor who has asked for such protection. Until the supreme court’s recent ruling, it was fairly well understood that as the 2nd amendment reads:
The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "the right of the people to be secure in their homes" refers to individuals while "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

What is currently the consensus of the American public about the overall issue of gun control?
( )
A relative majority of U.S. adults - 49 percent – favor stricter gun control, with 20 percent wanting less strict gun control and 21 percent wanting no change. Since 1998,however, this has dropped significantly as ten years ago, 69 percent favored stricter gun control. (Copyright Business Wire 2008)

What is the current consensus where related specifically to hand guns?
By 54 percent to 18 percent a majority favors stricter laws relating to the control of hand guns and another 18 percent want no change. Again, a decade makes a larger difference as in 1998, a 76 percent to 19 percent majority favored stricter laws relating to the control of hand guns. (Copyright Business Wire 2008)

So it is a nice trendy response these days to consider an even greater defense of this “right”! To be a “trend setter” and flip flop over to the side or less gun control might even feel cool, or smart right now. Or at least that is position of 25% of the population over the last 10 years.

Who was it, Thomas Jefferson or Bingaman Franklin, that said something to the affect,
"Those who neither are willing to fight for or die for our freedom don’t deserve it…":
( )

So let’s place ourselves in the time of our founding fathers…
Prior to Nuclear armaments! Prior to any masive battleships! Prior to Simi or fully automatic weapons! Prior to smart bombs! Prior to 350,000,000 citizens. Prior to a world that more than doubles it population every generation. Prior to our (socialized) social service, such as local fire department in every neighborhood and a policy headquarters in every major town.

So we all except the trillions of dollars we spend on national defense but we don’t except the scale of economy as being our countries decision to all contribute to a national armament.

So our fear in this republic and argument for “the right” to bear is to able to protect ourselves not only from our fellow citizens but also from a potential tyrannous government

Here lies a bit of a problem, we’ve kind of already agreed to give the government trillions of dollars to produce weapons and capabilities no citizen or “assembly” of citizens good possibly defend against.

Folks who kid themselves acting as if the issue it to nobly defending one’s “right” to bear arms and therefore cause worth fighting for; are merely joining a subculture of folks who seem to be ignoring the big picture and our worldwide presence and role the 2nd amendment has really involved into regarding the role our country “the people” has boldly taken on around the world.

I also admit it doesn’t bode well to follow the logic, “Most citizens cannot be trusted so we need firearms laws because we can trust citizens to abide by them.” So what is the solution?

And how absolutely scary to be guilty of a very unpopular “assault on our 2nd Amendment rights”. After all how would you possibly protect yourself from our high-tech, over powered military, our government from entering your home and invading your life if you weren’t packing a hand gun.

No comments: