The right to bear arms made sense in the 18th Century --for our defense, and to prevent the rise of absolute monarchs. Today we don't rely on a militia to defend the country internally. Tyranny would involve spying and suppression, rather than firearms. The second amendment was created as the last great stand against tyranny. The second amendment is now a pointless and devastating license to kill.
Last week guns, and someone bearing them, killed two family friends on Mount Pilchuck. Mary Cooper and Susanna Stodden--wife and daughter of my daughter's long time premiere soccer coach, were murdered while they were out hiking. These were good people, northwesterners that spent their lives in the outdoors hiking the mountains. They worked for charities. They were loved by many. And someone with a gun took their lives. I won't go back over all the tired and shopworn arguments for freedom of gun ownership. Maybe I take it personally. These deaths, the two times I was held up at gunpoint in New York City, and all of the senseless killings between these events are argument enough for me.The right to bear arms is a "freedom" I am ready to surrender. I am a pretty strict constitutionalist, but it is time, alas, for us to give up this freedom and by giving up this freedom, we may discover, as Kris Kristoferson wrote, that "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." By losing this particular freedom, we just might find ourselves truly untethered and find that freedom from guns is freedom indeed.
---o0o---
6 comments:
Law abiding citizens giving up the right to own guns will not magically rid the world of criminals or guns. Keeping the right and (more importantly) exercising it, will, however, give innocent people the ability to defend themselves.
The number of innocent people defending themselves is miniscule compared to the number of innocent people being murdered. The innocents all currently have the right to pack heat.
The deterrent effect is complete and utter horseshit.
I'm not really talking about giving up rights; I'm talking about extending our rights--by locking up every gun nut who refuses to surrender his weaponry.
Your facts are not correct. Studies show there are about 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year in the united states ... people defending themselves from those who would do them harm.
Yeah, that's the cops. I'll still let them keep their guns. . .until there is no longer any need!
This argument--that if everyone was packing heat we'd all live in blissful harmony is not only disingenuous, but flat out crazy talk.
Wrong again. That is ordinary citizens defending themselves. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but to have any worth, an opinion should be an informed opinion based on the facts.
You clearly do not have a handle on the facts or really understand the issue. As a result, your opinion is just random babble.
No rational person believes that crime or violence can be eliminated with any “silver bullet”, but, just because you would like to give up your right to defend yourself, does not mean that everyone should. I will be able to defend myself and my family if the need should ever arise, whether in a parking lot or hiking, whether against a person or a wild animal. I doubt you will be.
If your friend was prepared to defend herself, say may well be alive today. It obviously would not be a guarantee, but at least she would have had a chance to protect herself and her daughter. It is a tragedy that she was not prepared.
Disregarding your insults, we can pass half-baked theories back and forth all we want. For every argument that you gun guys come up with about how more guns=less crime (and you come up with plenty), there’s a more valid argument that they don’t.
It’s time to make a reasonable conclusion about whether guns are safe or not. And the most reasonable conclusion is that, well, things designed to kill people are just not inherently safe. With no guns around, we just might find out that we just don't need them anymore.
Post a Comment