When someone swings something in our direction, we instinctively react by flinching.
When someone or something assaults our psyche, we instinctively react by a different kind of flinching.
Knee jerking.
The knee jerk reaction to the horrific assault on our psyches in Colorado is yet another popping off of the lid on the jar labeled "Gun Control Debate".
Any reasonable person can see merit on both sides of the almost cliche' argument between those who believe stricter gun control laws would prevent future slaughters and those who believe otherwise and, moreover, stand firm and tall against any infringement on their rights to bear arms.
As seems so often to be the case these days, I find myself pretty firm and tall in the middle.
Those who idealistically, and, yes, naively, believe that more regulation will generate more protection are, obviously, both idealistic and naive.
It brings back into fashion that oldie but goodie "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns."
On the other hand, though, those whose knee jerks suffciently to result in a full throated defense of the romantic, traditional, but equally naive "constitutional right to bear arms" are, obviously, romantic, traditional and, yes, naive.
Let me offer up a boiled down to basics perspective here.
Given that Americans continue to believe that their individual "rights" are sacrosanct, even at the expense of common sense and given that the NRA/gun lobby in this country virtually assures that any effort, commonly sensible or not, to curtail the manufacture and sale of guns in this country will be, forgive, shot down from the get go, it's a fool's errand to suggest, let alone, promote any serious kind of additional restriction on hand guns and/or rifles, the kind of weapons that reasonable people could argue have practical civilian uses, such as home protection, hunting, etc.
Begrudgingly, so be it.
That said, here's a thing.
Assault weapons, such as the AR 15 that James Holmes chose as his opening act and that were banned until the recent expiration of that ban, have one, singular purpose and function.
To fire as many bullets as quickly as possible.
Less a weapon, more a killing machine.
And effective as all giddyup as Holmes and his fellow infamous wack jobs have so tragically proven.
So, hype, flag waving hysterics, political and/or corporate agendas and full throated advocacy of "rights" notwithstanding, what reasonable person could stand against a resumption of the ban on those assault weapons?
The key word there, of course, is reasonable.
But here's the calm, considered opinion of an every day American citizen who believes passionately in individual liberty and would defend, to the death, your rights to same.
Let's stop wasting time suggesting, let alone actually debating, any additional legislation as regards hand guns and/or rifles.
And lets's all agree to join together in a resumption of the ban on assault weapons.
As far as "rights" go on that one, by the way?
I'd offer that your right to freely purchase a weapon that exists for no other reason than its ability to kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds is trumped by my family's right to be protected from somene as bat shit crazy as James Holmes...and as dumb fuck stupid as you.
And if you fall into the latter category and still resist any infringement of your "rights", try this...
Picture the cutest child in your family.
Picture them lying on a slab in the morgue with a bullet in their head.
Are you horrified?
I should think so.
Are you offended?
My apologies.
Do you finally get it?
For the love of God...and that kid...I sincerely hope so.
No comments:
Post a Comment