The tragedy in Tuscon has sparked yet another debate in this country regarding the 2nd Amendment rights for all Americans to keep and bear arms. The Right continues its drum beat sermon that demands that any and all forms of guns should be permitted entry into our general society. The Left continues to simply ask that we limit the types of guns allowed. I think there is room for compromise.
There are certain aspects of this debate that have gone missing from the conversation. As a Democrat and as someone who would prefer that an unstable person be limited to 6 rounds of ammunition instead of 600, I am a strong advocate for limiting handguns to law enforcement officials, while permitting rifles and shotguns for hunting to the general public. Of course the Right balks at this idea, but somehow I'm just certain that none of them have ever been involved in a mass shooting.
Here is something to consider: we don't allow the general public to have the codes to our nuclear arsenals. The Right's logic would dictate that anyone who wanted to should have the right to build a missile silo on their property and fire it off any old time they wanted, provided they have a permit. Other forms of arms we don't allow into the general public are chemical weapons, tanks, surface to air missiles, and various other forms of weapons of mass destruction. But mention it to their face, and the Right would surely say, "Oh don't be ridiculous." I couldn't agree more.
To decry the Left's attempts to curb gun violence in this country by continuing to push for more and more access to more and more weapons of mass destruction such as Glocks, AK47's, and M16's continues to paint the Right as the radical group of political panderers and fearmongerers they are in this country today. It continues to paint a large swath of the American public as unable to discuss their way to an agreement, and instead settle every conflict with a gun. I thought American men had more balls (and brains) than that, but perhaps I have overestimated many of them.
I've been astonished at the level of blatant ignorant rhetoric on the part of members of the Right who say that if Congresswoman Giffords had possession of a handgun herself, that she would not have been shot. How unrealistic to think that she would be able to even aim at someone who shot her from behind. How unrealistic to think that just owning a gun would have prevented the tragic shooting of the additional 19 victims in the tragedy. As the Right would say to me if I were to suggest that all Americans should be given access to hand grenades and missile launchers, "Oh that's ridiculous." Again, I would agree.
There are others who have astonished me even more saying that we don't need to control the types of guns the general public is allowed access to because after all, they can always use a knife. But come on folks. How is a knife going to stop a madman from spraying a crowd full of bullets from a semi automatic weapon? Again I say, "Oh that's ridiculous."
Let's be honest America. Our founding fathers only knew of canons and muskets in the days of the Constitutional Congress. They certainly never authorized private citizens to own canons. However, they realized that at that time, many Americans hunted for their food, and that an unarmed citizenry could be left vulnerable to a rogue government commanding a rogue army to attack America's own citizens, and felt that all citizens should have some way to protect themselves.
I say if the Right insists on pursuing this line of allowing the easy access to semi automatic weapons and ammunition to a free society with a fair share of mentally unstable people, then perhaps Sarah Palin's little map isn't to blame for the Tuscon tragedy after all.....at least not entirely.
Sincerely,
Brian Anthony Bowen
Member of the Worldwide Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community
Music Producer, "The Gemini Enterprise: Stellar Trance"
Blogger, "The Gemini Gayzette"
Author of upcoming new book, "The Bed Keeper: A Biblical Case FOR Gay Marriage"
No comments:
Post a Comment