Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Polly's Ticks

In the wake of the Virginia Tech disaster the issue of gun control has come to the forefront again. I've noticed this topic coming up on multiple blogs that I read and I've chipped in my $.02 here and there but largely taken a laissez-faire approach on here... until today. After it came up again on one of the other blogs I read:

I believe with the right to keep and bear arms comes responsibility and I believe American society as a whole has shown a general unwillingness to accept the responsibilities that come with that particular right. In refusing to accept the responsibilities that come with certain rights, aren't we-- as a society-- forfeiting those rights?

Do we, as a people, truly deserve the right to keep and bear arms if we don't accept all of the responsibilities that come with that right?

While there are plenty of people who DO accept and respect those responsibilities... sadly there are enough that don't to ruin it for the rest... therein lies the problem.

The same could be said for freedom of speech and freedom of the press... Those are also rights we're playing fast and loose with, rights we aren't using but abusing... and in abusing those rights the threat of them being taken away is a very real one.

But with all of this said-- the government is supposed to be a servant, not a ruler of the people. In forfeiting our right to keep and bear arms to that government. We are ceding them greater power. In ceding them that power, what weight will we as a people have if we choose to (in the words of our founding forefathers), "petition the government for a redress of grievances"? Do we really want to forfeit a right that would essentially turn our government from a servant of the people into a ruler of the people?

Our founding fathers were explicit in the wording of the 2nd ammendment and as much as those 2nd ammendment rights may have been granted as tools for early Americans to provide for and protect their families, those rights are also there to allow the people the opportunity to prevent our government from ever becoming a tyrrany or dictatorship. What weight will our greivances against the government have if the government can arm against not only its enemies but also its very citizens without fear of reprisal from its citizens?

4 comments:

The Phoenix said...

You sound like you're on the fence. Personally, I am....

um...

on the fence.

Perplexio said...

Phoenix: Yeah, sitting on the fence sucks, doesn't it? The pointy bits really do a number on my groin!

Dantallion said...

hehe. You said groin.

I dunno. My feeling is that the problem is way bigger than just gun control law. I believe that massive campaign finance and lobby reform have to happen to remove special interest (ie: state sanctioned bribery) from the political system. I believe that strict adherence to an ammendment written 230-odd years ago, right after a war for independence, and at a time when they could never have imagined what shape the rule of law and government would take in the future is a bad idea. And I believe (and this is the thing that most people and just about all the studies never take into account) that real change to a society and it's culture happens slowly over time. The real effects of (serious) gun control legislation would not be felt for many, many years to come. Politicians would have to have the courage and leadership skills to point the country in a direction, not based on political rhetoric and special interest, but rather based on sound analysis and the best interests of the society at large, free of political retribution. Politicians need to STOP "needing the issue" to campaign on, and START actually fixing the problems for society. And NOT because of partisanism.

A little all over the map, I know. But there IS a logic to the point I'm trying to make. I promise. :)

Godwhacker said...

I agree with Dantallion on the ills of lobbying. But I don't think the age of our constitution makes it any less valid or relevant. I believe in the constitution. I also believe that it is acceptable to bar convicted felons and psychotics from possessing guns. I don't think that will stop them from getting guns anyway, but it's worth a shot.

An honest and sane armed person is no danger to anyone but criminals.