My wife was once pulled over for driving 38 in a 30 mph zone,
despite the tailback of disgruntled drivers lusting to pass her. She contested the ticket and got off with a warning. Its gist was: we
will waive the ticket this time, but you were in violation.
This isn't a piece about driving; it's about the (Ho hum!)
latest bit of senseless American bloodshed: the massacre in Orlando. I'm sick
of listening to excuses from gun advocates and the fascist NRA about why we
can't limit gun access. Their arguments are as tiresome as the
postmortem homilies, sprays of flowers, and on-site Teddy Bear dumps that occur
every time a mass murder occurs. That's quite often, actually. In 2015, nearly
13,000 Americans were murdered and another 84,000 were shot but survived.
Enough already! All the post-tragedy hoopla has become as boring—yes, I said
boring–as the pathetic whining of Second Amendment Warriors (whom, I might add,
are often the same crowd that disrespect everything else about the U.S.
Constitution except the 10th Amendment.)
I've had it with your tiresome insistence upon your right to own an Uzi. It violates my right to have a safe community that's
reasonably free of psychos with mail-order guns and large clips of ammo. And
let's get it straight: you don't have the right to demand no gun control any more than I have to demand total gun control. The United States is founded upon three concepts
and you don't get to choose just one. Liberty
refers to certain political rights
guaranteed to individuals akin to those in the First and Second Amendments. Freedom, however, is
liberty's handmaiden, not its synonym. It does not refer to your rights, rather those to which all
citizens collectively and communally
are entitled. Freedom places restrictions upon liberty, which should more
properly be viewed as the freedom to move within a framework of—breathe deeply—limits. Your First Amendment right to
free speech is no defense for violating public safety laws, hate speech
ordinances, or public order; neither will your freedom of religion right allow you
to practice violent jihad, engage in
"honor" killings, bomb an abortion clinic, or declare holy war
against infidels.
Now it's time for liberals to breathe deeply: you cannot ban
all guns unless the Second Amendment is repealed. A better tactic is to insist
upon limits to the Second Amendment analogous to those placed upon the First. It begins with calling out the
tiresome rants of the NRA and their kneejerk groupies as violations of
American freedom injurious to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Third concept: democracy,
the direct action of the electorate in electing officials and influencing
public policy. According to the New York
Daily News—hardly a bastion of liberalism—80% of Americans favor tougher
gun control. My reference to a fascist NRA is not
overblown. It's a self-serving militaristic cadre holding the nation hostage to
a rigid extremist ideology–defining characteristics of fascism.
Just stop with the trite stuff. No—you don't need automatic
weapons to protect your family: a handgun will do the job. The most verifiable
stats claim around 280 yearly home attacks thwarted by guns. Few of these potential attacks
were random and most occurred in high-crime neighborhoods, but no matter—a fool
using an automatic multi-round weapon in his own home is as likely to kill his
family as the intruder. A handgun will suffice.
There is zero
reason for an individual to have multi-clip, multi-round weapons. Let's cut the
BS: the sole purpose of automatic and semi-automatic high-capacity weapons is
to commit mass destruction. No one outside of the US military–not even cops–should
have such weapons. If you've got a gun fetish, admit it, and let's do what is
done in civilized nations: you can
own the gun, but you can't buy ammo for it. When you want to fire it, you go to
a licensed range where you are issued ammo and must account for each round. Put
away that "What about hunters?" malarkey; using such a gun isn't sport, it's senseless slaughter.
There is also no reason to allow guns or ammo to be
purchased by mail, over the Internet, at fly-by-night gun shows, or without
thorough background checks. These blood-soaked businesses must be shut down. If
you can't haul your sorry ass down to Walmart to buy ammo and undergo security
checks, you can go without. And you only get one box at a time. No excuses. In
a rational society, Omar Mateen isn't sold a gun under any circumstance.
But STFU about terrorists. The NRA is already playing the
ISIS card to explain Orlando. Of course, it said nothing when a few months ago
some guy blew away a few Muslims in California. But here's why you don't want
to go that route. When 9/11 occurred, the response was to set up a national
security state. Well we commit four plus 9/11s every year in gun homicides (and
three per month if we include all victims), so how do you feel about a national
gun control state? I doubt many are comfortable with the idea of America as one
big airport in which there are security lines, metal detectors, body scanners,
and pat downs everywhere.
Finally, how about a realistic national dialogue about the
sort of country in which we want to live? The NRA insists there is "no
evidence" that gun control works. Rubbish! It always dodges the simple fact that other democracies don't have
comparable levels of violence. Or worse, it drags out examples of nations with
higher murder rates. The USA is a mere 91st in the world in per
capita murders, but just six nations match our sanguinary output (South Africa,
Nigeria, Mexico, Venezuela, India, Russia). Percentage-wise, our homicide rate
is 3.8 per 100,000. Which groups of peers would your prefer–places such
as Congo, Nigeria, Guatemala, and Honduras; or low-homicide nations such as
Canada (1.4), New Zealand (0.9), Germany (0.9), or Indonesia (0.5)? How do you
feel about the fact that Syria, Libya, and Turkey are way safer than the
USA?
It's time to sacrifice liberty for the freedom to be safe.
Of all the arguments against gun control, the ultimate lamest is: "I'm a
responsible gun owner so why do I have to suffer because of criminals, thugs,
and terrorists?" Here's why: for the same reason you can be pulled over
for going 38 in a 30 mph zone. The purpose of law in a civil society is protecting
the public from the irresponsible.
It's why we have speed limits. Maybe you would
drive responsibly without laws limiting your speed, but would you welcome
the anarchy of roads without limits or traffic cops? How about eliminating stop-for-school
bus laws? Stop on red? Civil society places limits on freedom to curtail our
demons so that our better angels can be at liberty. It's high time to exorcise
the fascist NRA demons holding angelic liberty hostage.
Posts
