So this might not be the most popular stance today, but Im going to come out and say it - Im all for gun rights. Im for the right to own anything you want to, so long as you are a responsible owner of said item. Hell, I think you should be able to own an anti-aircraft gun in your back yard so long as your not constantly pointing it at your neighbor or the mailman. This argument often comes up against the counter-point of "guns should be made illegal because they have no purpose besides violence and murder." Well its hard to argue that guns have a practical purpose outside of shooting something (though I guess if you had a heavy enough piece, unloaded, you could use it as a hammer, but I digress.) Its a fair point to raise, I must admit. The only time youre ever going to use a gun outside of a gun range is to shoot at something/someone. Theyre pretty useless otherwise.
This, however, is not grounds for banishment from the public.
Now of course the piece of garbage that shot up the movie theater a few weeks back attained his weapons legally (supposedly, though he was apparently under psychiatric evaluation, which means someone missed a background check if you ask me.) Should this mean that every other person in this country who legally and responsibly owns a gun has to be punished by stripping them of a right to their own personal property? We dont go on a crusade against cars every time someone is killed in a drunk driving accident. In a world governed by the chaos factor, these things will happen. Ah, but you say thats a ridiculous comparison as cars are necessary and vital to every day life, while guns do nothing good. This is true. So lets take the other part of that scenario and scrutinize it: Alcohol.
What practical purpose does drinking alcohol actually serve? In my mind, alcohol and guns are very similar in their non-physical properties (i.e. what they are capable of causing and the connotations attached to both.) Both, when used responsibly, can be fun and bring friends together around a common activity. In reverse, both are responsible for countless deaths, both are VERY expensive 'hobbies' and both have no practical application towards todays civilization. For all the people who go on shooting sprees who are then publicized around the nation and world, just as many (if not more) get hammered at the bar/home and then go out driving, eventually leading to a fatal car accident in which innocent bystanders were victimized. Alcohol also has the wonderful kicker of being addictive and causing long term disease and damage to the user and the society around them (you might think you know someone with a so-called gun addiction, but their withdrawl is imaginary.)
If we are going to base the legality of something on its practical use in society, then there are TONS of things we can also ban - Video games, pop music, cars that go faster than 80mph, balloons, teddy bears, cotton candy, soda.......
Soda. If youre anything like me, you have no doubt in your mind that your government couldnt care less about your health, but cares undoubtedly about anything it can profit off. This is why guns will not be banned, but this is why so many other things can and will be. In NYC, Mayor Bloomberg wants to limit the sale of sugary soft drinks to 16oz. per serving. This is supposedly in a crusade against poor health practice in an effort to help the public make 'better choices.' So let me get this straight, youre looking out for my health by banning foods, but if I need to see a doctor without insurance, Im straight up screwed? Ive heard so much talk about Obamacare and yet have no idea how it works, Im just defaulting to the always reliable idea of "it probably doesnt work as its supposed to." Its taxes, people. Anything that is banned or restrained from public use always goes back to the generation of revenue. More soda purchases = more tax dollars. When you ban smoking in a public area, and ticket those who still do, is this in response to a public health outcry, or is this just a new revenue stream? If you were SERIOUS about getting people to stop smoking, wouldnt you just disallow the sale of cigarettes in your area? Or would the hit from the lost tax revenue be far too great to bear?
So I say to you gun people who are clinging to them in fear that they will be stripped out of your hands soon enough, I say that your natural ally in this are the people for gay marriage. You might think "how the hell did you make that jump?" Well, what was discussed prior focused on property rights and right of free choice. Free choice is an overlap here, but this is also a CIVIL rights issue. These people are being held from doing what they wish to do (something that can bring no possible harm to society) because of the unconstitutional tangling of church and state in the matter of marriage. It might be one of the biggest oversights the US has ever made in its 'efforts' to supply a secular government (though lets be honest, that went out the window after 1980.) If you marry someone in a church, then why does the state need to be notified, only to make changes to your finances and how they tax you? If you marry at a courthouse, then who are the pastors and bishops to have any say in the matter outside of their individual vote at the ballot box?
Lets not even get into the story of how we have lost so many of our once cherished rights and liberties since 9/11. Keep your eyes and ears open in regards to Obama defending his new found executive powers to detain any American citizen indefinitely without trial (yes, that can happen now. What, you werent paying attention to politics on New Years Eve 2011? Almost everyone else wasnt, either.) I bet you feel comfortable living on soil that is now officially known as a 'battle ground' and is thus subject to the same rules and laws applicable in a war zone. Would you want to let go of your gun in a war zone? You thought terrorism was just a buzzword, but now its justification. In another 20 years, the way things are progressing, we will resemble China in nearly everything but name and language (most of our stuff is already made by them anyway, its only natural.) My point is here that no matter whos right is being infringed upon or held from them, one right held from one person endangers the rights of all. Its the classic 'slippery slope' theory, but it seems to hold true every time. When a governing body comes to take away something and is successful, they now hold a blue print to snatching anything else they can that will further assert their power. This isnt a matter of getting guns out of a killers hands, or keeping a big gulp away from a 400lb diabetic, this is about the right to decide your own fate. Of course, a man with a gun has the unjust power to decide others fate indiscriminately, but that is the price we all pay to live in a free society.
The world will kill you one way or another. It isnt fair, and I think there are a ton of people out there who have grown so used to the PC culture of the US that they have forgotten this. I leave this posting with a quote from one of America's greatest minds (and ladies man), Benjamin Franklin:
"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. "
Amen, sir. Live free, or die trying. That is the only world I can live in.
Comments (0)
Be the first to comment!