Gun rights/gun wrongs

Assault weapons don't kill, unarmed people do.

Assault weapons don’t kill, unarmed people do. (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

Gun rights are guaranteed by the Second Amendment while gun wrongs are guaranteed by the NRA. 30,000+ Americans die every year while far fewer die annually by acts of terrorism and our wars against terrorism. Why do we sacrifice so many lives to prevent random acts of terror? Partly because gun sales and wars are so profitable for some and partly because we don’t value the people who die. We put a higher value on the unborn than we do on the living. There is also the fear factor: fear of change, fear of the unknown and the pseudo fear of our own government whipped up for profit by the fear mongers on the right.

Repeal

repeal!

repeal! (Photo credit: skampy)

I favor the repeal of the second amendment to the Constitution (gun rights) and the twenty-second (presidential term limits). I realize that neither amendment is likely to be repealed anytime soon, but I still support their repeal.

Some on the Right have a longer list they want to repeal in addition to the enactment of the cut, cap and balance amendment. I oppose that amendment not only for the straitjacket it would impose on Federal spending during emergencies, but also because the proponents of the amendment want to cap Federal expenditures at a ridiculously low-level, 18% of GDP. Historically, Federal expenditures have been around 21-22% of GDP, and higher during recessions and war. If the supporters of cut, cap and balance have their way, most of the government safety net will disappear permanently, and that is their goal. The key word in cut, cap and balance is “cut.” Supporters don’t talk about what they will cut; they emphasize balance instead.

Exceptional nation

Washington DC - Capitol Hill: United States Ca...

Washington DC – Capitol Hill: United States Capitol – East front (Photo credit: wallyg)

The US is an exceptional nation with an evil Federal government if you listen to supporters of the second amendment. With a defense establishment second to none, we are the good guys who support freedom and democracy around the globe. Yet at home in the US, we require an armed citizenry to maintain freedom and democracy. Other nations around the globe that possess freedom and democracy don’t require an armed citizenry to maintain their freedoms. If our government is evil, why does it promote freedom and democracy abroad while at the same time planning to extinguish freedom at home, at least according to the fear-mongers on the Right? Why would the Federal government plot to extinguish our rights in the US while at the same time promoting those values elsewhere? It does not make sense.

Guns don’t kill

Seal of the City of Aurora, Colorado

Seal of the City of Aurora, Colorado (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Guns don’t kill, people (with guns) kill. How many times have you heard that lamebrained statement and how many more times must we hear it in the future before we do something to change it? Guns don’t kill people, but they make it much easier and faster to kill larger numbers of people with relative ease. Far fewer would have been killed and injured in Aurora, Colorado if the shooter had been limited to a single shot per weapon before he was forced to reload.

Gun control part 4

Washington DC - Capitol Hill: United States Ca...

Washington DC - Capitol Hill: United States Capitol (Photo credit: wallyg)

This is the fourth and I trust final post on the subject, at least for now. As I see it, there are two main reasons for the support of the second amendment: self-defense, discussed in a prior post, and distrust of the US government, the subject of this post.

Guns in the hands of the civilian population is believed by some to guarantee our freedom. This belief was born in our successful revolt against Great Britain in the period of 1776 to 1783. The US was aided financially by France and individuals from various European nations volunteered their services. Is that likely to happen again in the future? I think not.

Armed rebellion by residents of the South was attempted in the Civil War from 1861 to 1865 and was defeated. Even with aid from Great Britain, the South could not withstand the might of the Federal government. Do the militias and individuals expressing second amendment rights today honestly believe that they have any chance of success? I doubt that they could withstand the organized might of the Federal government nor could they expect assistance from governments or many individuals from outside the US. Rather than intervene on the rebels’ behalf, the UN or NATO are more likely to assist the US government.

Rather than suggesting armed rebellion against the government to protect their definition of freedom, the proponents of resistance to government policies should work within the system to effect change. If they cannot win the support of the majority of their fellow citizens, they should rethink their positions. The rest of the free world is free despite the lack of an armed citizenry. My advice to the second amendment supporters is to relax and enjoy life. And let the rest of us enjoy our lives without all the emphasis on 2nd and 10th amendment rights.

Please see  Gun control | Gun control part 2 | Gun control part 3