And this is because of a crazy twenty-something guy with a gun. Yes, it's true that we need better mental health care in this country. It's true that in some cases, it should be easier to commit someone showing dangerous, unhealthy behavior to a mental institution.
But Wayne La Pierre of the NRA (National Rifle Association) would have us believe that knowing the whereabouts of severely mentally ill people, keeping some of them in a national database, is fine while keeping a national database of gun owners is not. It infringes on our right to privacy; to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
He asserts that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is all we have to do, so we won't infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners just trying to protect their families.
To me, the first statement is hypocritical and the second is simplistic. Because when does a criminal become a criminal? Maybe he's already committed some criminal act before he buys a gun at a gun show. OR, maybe she doesn't become a criminal until she takes the gun out of her purse one day and shoots someone in the grocery store parking lot. Maybe he's always been a mild-mannered dentist until one day he gets depressed or angry, slides the gun out of the drawer, and shoots his wife and children.
Criminals may be able to get guns, and that's "criminal," but using a one's own legally bought gun when you've never used one before can make you a criminal. It usually does make you a criminal, immediately. Charged with murder, attempted murder, or something else.
So I hope we can get beyond the simplistic, the hypocritical in this issue and pass legislation that's practical, based in public health and common sense. Guns are too easy a tool for killing and injuring people.
Well said. I was reading Federalist Paper #1 the other day and it made a plea for candor in the discussions for and against the proposed national constitution. Hamilton counselled the public to be wary of those who most loudly espoused concern for how a strong constitution would curtail liberty. He expressed concern that those people had dangerous ambition cloaked behind their arguments intoning zeal for protecting rights of the people. Such is the case with the modern NRA. A pernicious ambition which borders on glee for an expected breakdown of social order, requiring the populous to protect themselves from the chaotic them. This is a treason of the heart with regard to the belief that we established a more perfect union seeking to secure the blessings of liberty for all times. A man who HAS to have a gun to feel secure in his homeland is bound by chains of fear and distrust that are stronger than external influence. He does not trust the community of felow citizens to create a solution...over time... to ills built out of our own myths of individual regulation of passions.
ReplyDeleteA dangerous ambition lurks in the heart of a man who believes that we should register those who were once called "feeble " while making sure the crafty man who beats his girlfriend with discretion must be found guilty and sentenced before we dare infringe on his right to purchase a gun ubder a cloak of legal annonimity.
Wow. Wayne LaPierre, are you listening? This post takes it back to the source, pre-Constitution! I wonder what that " dangerous ambition" is. Maybe it's just ambition pure and simple. And of course it's been used on both ends of the political spectrum.
Delete