In the
aftermath of the horrific Parkland shooting, a student-led gun control group
has sprung up, vilifying the NRA for lobbying politicians and attacking the
private ownership of firearms in general. And whilst I find their activism
understandable after going through a traumatic event, it is their beliefs and
policies that have made many draw lines in the sand for the upcoming debate and
legislation. However, in my perspective, I see that the gun control proposed by
these student activists are not what America needs to lessen the bloody death
toll of the United States’ shooting problem and are in grave violation of
impending on the 2nd Amendment rights of United States citizens
which as I will explain why I hold this position.
Let me
clear, I’m no AR-15 totting Rambo-wannabe, but another American gunowner who
sees a slippery slope that will not end until our 2nd Amendment
rights have been revoked, and the very principle for why we even have such a
right will be reveal like a brutal slap to the face. Principle, is something we
often forget after such horrible tragedies, and reason follows with it. Which
is promptly many unfortunately fall into a reactionary banter match that will
make many a sigh as they watch the news or scroll through their social media feed.
We have all seen in, the type of political mudslinging just as harsh as it was
during the 2016 election with the roles of “Conservative” and “Liberal” being
the monikers of these fights. We forget principle, we forget reasoning. We
forget so often why have the 2nd Amendment, a principle that our
forefathers understood after the 9 years of war and political upheaval. What
can a citizen do to protect himself against a tyrannical government that
impedes upon their rights? Well if the Minutemen or the hundreds of local
colonial militias early in the war taught the revolutionaries of yore, it was
that a citizen with a firearm is one of the greatest deterrents to tyrants. How
can a King or even a President truly oppress citizens if they are armed? Send
in the army, well then, you’ll get 1775 all over again. When a citizen has a
firearm, you give them a tool whose power can smite an oppressor, who can end a
foe. Our founding fathers just came out of war to end a tyrant’s rule, can you
blame them for putting in our Bill of Rights that anyone could a own the very
tool that forged their triumph over the British overlords. For a founder’s very
view point read Federalist Paper 46 (https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-46)
And in brief, if you believe that the Founders
wouldn’t want citizens to own military grade firearms such the AR-15, which
notoriously has been used in several major shootings, then why pray tell was
the military-grade weapon of their time. A musket, a Brown Bess most likely or
a rare Kentucky hunting rifle, both muzzle loading black powder firearms that
often were on both side of the battlefield and one of the most commonly used
set of firearms by most colonists. If we wanted to play the part of 21st
century revolutionaries, I sincerely doubt the founders thought the government
should have overwhelming firepower over the populace as if they and if so why
didn’t they make it the “right to bare blades” as we try to end tyranny with a
sword against their volleys of musket fire. No, the founders wanted the common
citizen to own a firearm capable and able to fight a militarized oppressor with
an equivalent firearm. It doesn’t take someone to read Orwell to know that if a
government with overwhelming power over the citizen is not a good idea, look at
the horrors brought from authoritarian governments such as the USSR or Nazi Germany
to see what happens when a government turns on the people and the people don’t even
have a weapon to fight back. The poster featured in this editorial, is 1918 propaganda from the USSR, demanding the deweaponization of their comrades whom many they turned on for being dissenters and the term 'Gulag' being made synonymous with their brutal repression of their citizens.
Now of
course, I don’t believe inaction will fix this shooting problem, but neither
will stiff gun regulation, are we honestly going to ban all assault rifles
because a very minute contingent of insane individuals commits horrible acts.
If that is not a true example of victimizing the law abiding to get to the
deranged few, I don’t know what is. A deranged individual brutally slaughters
people and you blame the weapon? Why not the person, the person who used a gun
not for hunting, defense, or sport but abused laws to initially murder people.
The mental state of someone who commits these disgusting acts would be the
first thing we take seriously, why is it that someone would commit these
barbarous acts were they neither mental health was not sound. A burglar will
rob out of greed, but a murderer who kills a person without mercy is not a sane
person. Mental illness in this country needs to be taken seriously, whether it
is a bullied psychologically doped up teenagers like Parkland or Columbine, a delusional
homophobic radicalized Muslim like Omar Mateen the Pulse Nightclub shooter or
an abusive dishonorable discharged lunatic named Devin Kelly who perpetrated
the Sutherland Springs church shooting with guns he shouldn’t have been able to
own. Mental health is a multifaceted treatment for the multifaceted issue of
shootings, but if we really want to stop someone from killing another or many
you must go for their mental state. Medication, counseling, therapy, etc.
that’s what will impact the shootouts and as for schools we also must make sure
that bullying is not tolerated, no matter what they are being ostracized for
even if that means a view or interest you don’t believe in.
In
closing, I truly feel horrible like so many Americans when I see “shooting” being
displayed on our morning news stations and hearing over and over for days on
these tragic events. I hope however we appeal to reason and think rationally
about what is best for the United States, and personally demonizing a gun is a
regressive policy.
If you
have an opposing viewpoint or wish to have a responding article published,
please contact TheAnglerOnline@gmail.com,
we here at The Angler greatly support your 1st Amendment rights and
would love to hear your views.
No comments:
Post a Comment