7-8 April 2013 –
I want to respond to the recent liberal blather over guns in our
society. I respond even though I know that this recent crisis
probably is just a convenient distraction from talking about the imminent
crises in society: the staggering national debt and continuing government
budget deficits that exacerbate the problem. Fortunately, efforts to
create more federal laws to restrict gun ownership seem to be
stalled. Maybe we can stop them completely with clear thinking and
decisive action.
The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is part and parcel of
the Constitution of the United States. The right of citizens,
independent of government, to bear arms was one of the antecedent rights that
far-sighted Founders insisted upon as a precondition to assenting to their new
nation’s founding document. The rights stated in the first ten
amendments to the Constitution precede any authority given by our Founders to a
constitutional structure of laws. The right of citizens to bear
arms, to be a people’s militia—a militia of one, if needs be—to defend personal
liberty against government or criminal tyranny, is as fundamental to an
American’s Liberty as is any other statement in the entire Bill of
Rights. To infringe upon it is to invite tyranny.
That is the argument. There is no other that even
approaches its importance. Nonetheless, advocates of restricting
Second Amendment rights argue that the violence that men do in this life stems
from the weapons in their hands, not from the evil or sickness in their
hearts. Advocates for gun restrictions never seem to pinpoint or
address the ongoing societal and personal flaws that impel individuals to belch
out wanton violence. Their argument is lazy; and, its
insistence on societal versus individual remedies abets government
tyranny. It squelches Liberty.
Furthermore, we should define and control the lexicon of our
argument. For example, allowing others to voice the argument as a
“gun control” problem is classic range-gate stealing of the frequency of the
original signal of fundamental rights to a distant one of political tinkering
for effect. Once we use their terms, we are forced to waste time
countering arguments about the wrong things at the wrong times for the wrong
reasons. Everybody loses using the liberal lexicon; but, we look the
more foolish. “Assault weapons” is another term that moves the focus
from individual rights and responsibilities to scary nonsense. A
semi-automatic .22 caliber rifle, no matter how nasty-looking the plastic doo-dads
are that adorn the newer models, is still just a semi-automatic .22
rifle. Assault is an act by individuals; it is not the weapon they
use. Name the actor, not the prop. The horror of mass killings is
another topic that quickly should be deconstructed. If someone kills
ten others and then himself in a mass murder/suicide, most people want a cogent
sound-bite to counter the seemingly senseless act. Mentally-ill,
suicidal people responsible for committing horrendous crimes seems most often
to be the accurate description of the event; the weapons the sick people stole
to commit the crime are not the casus horribilis. Important: Using
the lexicon that best defines our freedom and liberties best assures our
freedom and liberties.
After
thirty-four years of being in the management of violence, I can say with surety
that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Taking away
fundamental freedoms will never guarantee peace and security without also
imposing totalitarianism. Then, there will be no right or wrong, no
liberty, only compliance. As I have said to my children from youth
to adulthood: Welcome to the fight. I now add this: The
fight has always been for Liberty.
No comments:
Post a Comment