“History is full of examples of
leaders and politicians secure in their positions, deposed by anger and
retribution in the pursuit of individual freedom. Today is no different. The struggle for population dominance is occurring
on the stage of today. History, when
viewed logically, shows that although weaponry is important in these struggles,
the actual struggle is most generally a result of dominance run amok. The practice of limiting the population’s
ability to horde and have weapons is an effective way of limiting the damages
caused to those in the chair of political dominance. Thus the confiscation of those weapons would quell
any anti-government activity and makes the politic more secure and more
powerful.” Excerpted “GERMANY HERE WE COME” Arbee responds 2
The Second Amendment to the Constitution
allows the citizens of our republic to own weapons, not for providing food but
for providing our safety and the preservation of our freedoms. An amendment designed specifically to provide
all of us a means of protection against oppression by governments foreign and
domestic. The meaning of this amendment
is quite simple, succinct and easily interpreted.
We have allowed the discussion to revolve
around the devastating effects of guns being used to effect harm upon innocent
individuals, specific groups and
children just to mention a few. The
havoc and body count left behind these occurrences have fueled one of the most
contentious arguments of our time. The
feelings of sorrow and devastating effects of these shootings are felt by us
all, liberal and conservative alike.
Unless we are mentally ill, we generally despise this type of violence.
Facts and logic have an ugly way of
ruining another wise, lovely, intelligent and sensitive way of looking at these
occurrences. It’s simple to maintain the
belief that the tool used is causal. That answer is way too simple in fact. The fact is that before guns were even
invented atrocities existed. The
discourse weapon of today’s discussion is misdirection. The recent tragedy of Orlando has been quickly
moved from the horror and emotional aftermath into the realm of political
justification. Not justification of the
act but a justification of political position.
It is politically correct to call the tool used in these events as a
portion of the why instead of merely the how.
Using this approach is a means of hiding the neglect of our politic in taking
care of the underlying cause of each event.
How is important to the discussion, but why is where the discussion
should be focused. Even though the how,
or tool, has been the same in many of these tragedies, the why has been a
variable. As long as we argue about the
tool used, we neglect to correct any of the real factors that could prevent it
from happening. Political ideologies
have long infected this discussion; pitting feelings and sensitivity against
logic and in some cases fears. This
misdirection, used by both sides, hides too many failures of those we entrust
with our safety. We might think the
politic wants the removal of guns as a power protective measure, after all an
insurrection with rocks and sticks would be a relatively impotent adversary. Good thing I don’t believe in such nonsense.
Facts of discussion are: guns are just a tool, not the only tool; guns
never pull the trigger by themselves; there are many more tools available to
perform the same amount of devastation; ideology, mental illness, crime, anger,
intoxication, all of these can be causal factors. Guns cannot be causal. In the case of deaths caused by drunk drivers
I have never heard of or seen any reports of the car being the cause, or for
that matter even the alcohol, neither of which end up being put in jail. Facts are in any case the disaffected human
being is the ultimate factor of similarity.
In terms of preventing these mass
murders, both shooting and by other means, one other item seems to be threading
its way into oblivion. We have
experienced a lack of communication between our law enforcement, a misleading
of public sentiment to intentionally protect those in current positions of political
power. The dissemination of facts to our
society has taken a miserable turn for the worse. We have seen this proclivity for lies under
the guise of political correctness take a firm grasp on our media and population. We have an administration that refuses to
bring fanatics adhering to a fundamentalist view of Islam as a part of the
conversation because they believe we are too stupid to know that some never equals
all. This climate of spinning fact is
getting quite tiresome and until we start reacting to the fact instead of the
spin we all are in jeopardy.
Why are we unable to separate the how
from the age old law of cause and effect?
No comments:
Post a Comment