In fact, he went so far as to refer to it as "here's what's wrong with the whole Second Amendment thing...".
He then offered up the conditions necessitating the three primary needs, in that period of our history, that made insuring one's right to bear arms seem both practical and sensical.
There was, then, no United States Army, National Guard, et al. and the need for militia, in the form of armed citizenry was, reasonably, a practical necessity.
There were no Safeways or Krogers, Giant Foods or Super Wal Marts. Feeding one's family very often included shooting something to put in the kettle and/or pot. And, not for nothin', but it might be fairly added here that, at the time, certain sources of those family dinners, or their immediate fellow inhabitants of the plains and/or forest, were inclined, every now and then, to attempt to return the favor and eat the family if given the opportunity.
There were, just outside the city limits and/or just across the nearest border, any number of hostile tribes of Native Americans who were, at the time, more than just a little pissed at the way they were being shoved out of their own neighborhoods. Protecting one's family from those tribes was as much a part of the daily routine then as dealing with inept customer service reps is today.
Three very good reasons to be not only allowed, but expected, to own a weapon without fear of reprisal from any local, state or federal government.
Three conditions which, in the year 2012 (nudging 2013 ever so holiday-ishly at the moment), simply don't exist any longer.
Passionate, inflexible (read: NRA card carrying) gun owners would likely find a little something to brandish their Glocks at in that third condition, arguing that while there are no longer hostile tribes of Native Americans lurking over the border or through the woods, there are, even in the year 2012 plenty of hostiles to deal with on the streets, plenty of danger lurking around the next corner or getting ready to pry open our upstairs windows, to rape and/or pillage and/or kill us. Plenty of reason to have a weapon to protect us from that evil.
Fair point.
When my first wife was a young girl living with her sister and their widowed mother, she was instructed that, should it ever be necessary, she was to go to the widowed mother's bedroom, lock the door, take the loaded shotgun from the wall rack, sit on the bed, aim the gun at the door and shoot first, ask questions later.
No reasonable person could find any fault in that logic.
No reasonable person, meanwhile, could argue that those vulnerable ladies would have been better served had they had a house full of semi automatic and/or automatic weapons.
There's that pesky word "reasonable", though.
That word that keeps getting lost in the discussions and debates and arguments and knock down, kick ass, pry this gun from my cold dead fingers ranting that goes on day after week after month after year.
While mall shoppers and theatre patrons and principals and school psychologists and students keep on getting shot to death.
And, this time, twenty children.
Children.
The frustration that any reasonable person feels, frustration that naturally comes to life as a reaction to the grief triggered by an unspeakable, horrific act, is that once the bodies are buried and the weeping ends and the blood dries, we will still be confronted with evil and even those who are convinced in their heads that the way to do away with evil is to do away with guns know, in their hearts, that the elimination of one simply will not, cannot, insure the elimination of the other.
So, by engaging in the same, endless loop debate about gun control, we are wasting time, precious time given that the clock has already begun running again for the next mall shopper, theatre patron, principal, school psychologist and student who will die next.
And the children.
And no matter what simple solution our grief and horror convince us is available, the fact is that simple solution is an illusion.
I'm a pretty smart guy. And I honestly don't know what the answer is.
What I do know is that my collegue was spot on with his facts.
There was no Army and now there is.
There were no Safeways and now there are.
There were lots of hostile tribes and now there aren't.
Reason seems to offer that we should all agree that, at the very, very least, we need to all, all of us,, work to find a way to make the acquisition of weapons more difficult, difficult enough that, at the very, very least, the system would have more than one or two or ten opportunities to be redflagged that the potential gun owner isn't concerned about bringing down an army or bringing home the bacon or circling the wagons but, rather, ready to end their own pathetic, painful lives while feeling some satanic need to inflict, on their way out, that pain on mall shoppers and theatre patrons and principals and school psychologists and students....
...and children.
Laying one's arsenal of Glocks and Sigs and AK-47's on a flag to pridefully demonstrate to fellow gun enthusiasts how the Second Amendment provides the freedom to have easy access to that arsenal misses the point.
That same flag is often used to drape the coffins of those whose lives have been ended by those weapons.
And, as oft repeated, the problem with freedom is...you have to give it to everybody.
Including those who are ready to end their own pathetic, painful lives while feeling some satanic need to inflict, on their way out, that pain on mall shoppers and theatre patrons and principals and school psychologists and students....
...and children.
The need to stop cloaking guns in the American flag has never been more obvious.
Ever.
In fact, I'd offer that the need is so clear that even a very young child could see the logic.
I can think of twenty very young children who would see it that way right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment