It's no secret that the furor over gun control given recent
events has overshadowed even the economy as the issue at the forefront of most
people's minds. Violent acts against the
innocent, especially children, shock us
out of our complacency turning even the most apathetic into fair weather activists.
So it's no surprise that the cause du jour on capitol hill
is stamping out those things perceived as encouraging the worst aspects of
humanity. Perhaps more correctly, the
lack of said humanity.
Guns, video games and violent movies are easy targets with many
proposing removal or strict regulation could provide society with a kind of
pacifism vaccine. Others see such action
as an erosion of civil liberties and
further evidence of the heavy hand of big government.
They're both wrong...
If you believe in the rhetoric of the NRA you probably think
the government is somehow just over the next hill coming to take away your
right to defend yourself. Their defense
is distraction suggesting that perhaps the opposition got one thing right.
Yes of course! It's
those violent video games,
says the NRA, that turns normal human beings into inhuman murderers urged on by
the virtual bloodbath that is Starcraft 2!
The opposition is quick to point out, however, that nobody's ever been
murdered by a video game no matter how violent.
The opposition is no better, however. The proverbial baby is thrown out with the
bathwater seeking to eliminate all that is perceived to be unpleasant or an
affront to civil society. To them, the government
may be imperfect but its judgment ultimately superior for the sake of the
public good.
The problem with regulation for the "public good"
is that it often treads on civil liberties.
Look no further than internment camps detaining Japanese-American
citizens during World War 2. Of course
most people aren't aware of history past Ronald Reagan's presidency so a more
recent example may be in order.
There were
laws put in place for the "public good" not so long ago that allow warrant less wire taps and searches under powers granted by the ironically named
"Patriot Act."
All ammunition (no pun intended) for the Tea Party
crowd.
I'm going to attempt to bring this all together for you so
bear with me.
First, the biggest fear of gun advocates is government "interference"
with the ownership of their weapons. They
feel that government regulation seeks to eventually leave them defenseless and
subjugated to an oppressive regime.
The most extreme of the group will stockpile quantities of
assault weapons in preparation for the coming "showdown." They also frequently cite the second
amendment to the Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence as the
foundation for their beliefs. The right
to obtain any weapon they choose without obstruction is to their mind central
to a constitutionally protected right to overthrow an oppressive government.
Two major, glaring problems with those lines of reasoning.
First, all it takes is one well placed shot from a shoulder
launched missile and your little revolution is over. That's assuming they even bother to send
troops and instead just have a drone take you out.
Second, there's a flaw in their logic concerning the
constitutional basis for their position.
The Declaration of Independence was written as a response to the
oppression of King George on the colonies not the United States. You can copy and paste if you want but you
can't cite the original for your position.
Turning to the Constitutional argument. The Second Amendment allows citizens to defend
themselves from an invading foreign army via an organized state militia
otherwise known as the National Guard. That's
it folks, nothing more, put those A-Team and Rambo fantasies to bed.
Nobody wants to be defended by an unruly band
of weekend warriors running around humming the theme to
the Green Berets.
Does anyone actually believe that any government document
would be written with a provision to allow its own overthrow? Sorry, but expecting constitutional
protections from the very government you oppose is utter nonsense.
One more thing, extremists are generally not good students
of history and forget that there would never have been a United States without
help. Countries like France and Spain
provided money, munitions and even troops to the fledgling nation. Admittedly born more out of a hatred for
Britain and economic opportunism than any great magnanimity.
With British warships effectively blockading all major ports
and choking commerce the American revolution
could have been nothing more than a skirmish without outside help. Great Britain could have simply starved the rebellious
colonies out much like the UN uses economic sanctions to punish rogue states.
So unless you've got some superpower-sized assistance lined up,
best forget your revolution and put your guns back in the trophy case. Of course I'm probably completely wrong so I
invite you to find the nearest mountain cabin from which to plot your revolution. Let me know how that works out for you.
Hey, at least you'll get your 15 minutes of fame on CNN
before they move on to the latest Kardashian fiasco.
On the other side of the aisle, the expectation of the ideal
violence-free society resembling something out of a Woodstock hallucination is
equally flawed.
Congress seems to have an affinity for regulation. Problem is, it's usually for the wrong
things. Classify Marijuana as a
controlled substance and they create a booming illegal underground market. Relax FDA regulations and late night television
is crowded with ads for lawyers participating in class action lawsuits against
pharmaceutical companies.
There used to be an assault weapons ban but it was given an
expiration date like a container of milk.
I suppose that was so they'd be safer when they became legal again...
The problem with regulation is that it's black and white
when there should be shades of gray and vice versa.
Remember when congress managed to give away
700 Billion dollars to bail out Wall street interests in 2008? You'd think that kind of investment of public
funds would have some kind of oversight, right? Not only was the 3 page bill passed with virtually
no accountability for the recipients but with specific language to prevent it.
There were regulations passed to be overseen by the newly
formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but the agency is largely toothless
in its enforcement. It's forced to
depend on the good graces of the entities it monitors. The foxes are assumed to be on their best
behavior in the hen house.
Of course, a lobby-fed congress being necessary to the
security of the state... Yes, I did it,
I ripped off the second amendment for that.
And why not, it might as well be in the bill of rights.
Deregulation of the financial markets over the past 3
decades created a fertile environment for the Wall street sideshow. A performance that resulted in the world's
economy coming to the brink of collapse.
Still, even in a period of time short enough to match the average
attention span lobbyists keep congress from passing meaningful reforms in the
financial market.
So can we actually
expect congress to pass meaningful legislation about anything? Their history is to either provide toothless
agencies hampered by legislative loopholes you can drive a truck through or to
disenfranchise an entire segment of the population.
I'm personally frustrated by the reactionary politicians
that cause this mess. They're always on
the lookout for the quick fix that'll play well to the short attention span of
the constituency. You need only look at
the recent Republican Presidential campaigns for evidence. They actually tried to use current economic
conditions to unseat a sitting president, for example.
Never mind that the country was still recovering from the
worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. To the Mitt Romney's and Ben Quayle's, the
economy should have recovered in 90 days.
Let's also not forget about the congressional logjam fueled by ideologies
that only served to further delay any recovery.
What does all this have to do with gun control? Simple, it's not about the subject, it's
about the process. We'll either get
overreaching legislation or nothing at all.
My proposal? Quit
blaming the straw man. It's not the guns,
video games, or violent media causing these bloodthirsty rampages. No, It's a
flawed system easily taken advantage of by a disturbed individual at a gun
show. It's the unsecured weapon in the
home of a troubled teenager. It's not
incorporating technologies into weapons that only allow them to operate when
keyed to a specific owner. So called
Smart guns have been in development for the past decade by the way but adoption's
been blocked by groups like the NRA citing privacy issues.
We're required to be tested and licensed to operate a motor vehicle. That vehicle is required to be registered to
operate on the public roadways. At any
time law enforcement can, for cause, stop you if they suspect a violation of
the law.
Most of us accept those conditions to participate in our
daily commute. Why then should there be
an issue with registering a device whose very design is intended to harm? Now, don't try to paint me with a broad brush
for that. I really could care less what
kind of firearm you own so long as you're willing to take responsibility for
it.
You can be sure that if you blow the front of my house off
with a military surplus RPG, however, I'm going to be showing up at your door. I would not, however, suggest that you
couldn't have it rather just that I and everyone else knows that you do.
LG 3D glasses - Purchase select LG TVs and receive 2 FREE 3D glasses
Does that mean the police are going to show up every time
somebody's house gets blown up by a rocket?
Probably, but it comes with the territory.
It's no different than the police escort you'll get every
rush hour because you happen to be driving an "arrest me Red"
Corvette.
It comes down to taking personal responsibility for your
actions. If you don't want the
government interfering with your "rights" then you're going to need
to join civil society and ditch the Rambo fantasies.
We're never going to completely eliminate the possibility of
a determined psychopath causing another Sandy Hook no matter how strict our gun
laws are. There is a better chance of
heading it off, however, by requiring gun owners to take personal responsibility
for their actions. That comes from measures
like registration, background checks, training and smart gun technology.
I'm putting the onus on you, not the government, not the entertainment
industry nor the NRA to solve the problem of gun violence. You're the one with the guns.
Status Quo is Latin for "the way things are" and
it's not going to work anymore. Change
will happen and it's best to have a say in it unless you're comfortable with
someone else doing your thinking for you...
Yeah, I didn't think so...
Do either of those and you'll quickly be branded "Not Advertiser
Friendly" which at the minimum denies your videos monetization or at worst
gets them pulled down.
.JPG)
