Thursday, March 01, 2018

A "Good Opportunity" for a 'Temporary Ban' on guns?

There's always a "very good opportunity" for gun grabbers to legislate against the Second Amendment.    The Constitution has become, not the bulwark of freedom in our country,  but a target for those who would undermine those freedoms for which men have fought and died for over 200 years.

GOP's Brian Mast: President Trump Must Enact Immediate 'Temporary Ban' on AR-15s:
We’ve seen a lot of shootings out there. We’ve seen what’s happened in Parkland, we’ve seen what happened in Las Vegas, we saw what happened in Orlando. And for me personally, it pains to know that I went out there, willing to defend my country, willing to give everything, with almost the exact same weapon that’s used to go out there and, unfortunately, kill children here in Parkland. And I think there’s very real opportunity here for response and for action.
* ("I Feel Your Pain" ... not!  It's just "Political rhetoric;" pay no attention.)

Firearms are not weapons; people are weapons.  Guns are tools.

But .. They Know What Is Best For Us!

Evidently, the GOP thinks that civilians should be denied the most effective defensive weapons, because the same weapons are also available to "bad guys".

As if the Bad Guys can't get them; even though legally,  sometimes you and I cannot.

And the reason why the Bad Guys want those weapons is the they are more effective than those which you and I may legally own.
Advantage: Bad Guys.


Not everybody is responsible for their own actions.  Not everybody cares.

We have citizens who are full of hate and fury, and they abuse their rights when they predate on their neighbors.   They don't care to be "responsible citizens"; they are driven to madness, and nothing you can do will 'fix' that.

   The "reasonable" response is simple; defend yourself, defend your family.   Call the police if you will, but they aren't always very good at that 'community defense' thingie and they are spread too thin.

Once again we must provide not only for our "common defense", but for our own personal defense.

911 Is Not Your Friend

Powerful political factions have decided that "the children" (you and I) are incompetent to provide for ourselves.  Too often that is true, because Americans no longer teach their children to be responsible for their own actions, but are obliged to ask "The Government" to intervene.   Parents teach their children that in an emergency, "Call 911!"

Unfortunately, the police are not responsible for your well-being.   You are.

The police will respond to requests for help, and route the nearest patrol car to your address.  If you can get to the phone.   Sometimes they might even be of more assistance than taking crime-scene photos and interviewing survivors (if any).   They will testify at the trial of your murderer.

As a consequence, now even the (previously "trusted") Republican Party has decided that we cannot even be" trusted"  with the best means of personal defense.

Because of the "Mad Men"

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" we are advised in "The Wizard of Oz".

We have abdicated the responsibility of taking care of ourselves.  We have slowly, but inevitably, yielded our rights to The State, and they are delighted to take responsibility for "Cradle to The Grave" care of us. 

Because we are children to them; we don't understand how things are done today, and "They Know What Is Best For Us".

Still, takes longer for the police to respond to a 911 call than it takes you to call 911.
A gun in your nightstand is as close to your hand as is the cell phone on top of it.
And far more immediately effective.
The best use of 911 is to call for someone to clean up the mess, and arrest the survivors.

You may be the only survivor, but it's still better to be arrested and go to trial, than to be murdered.


But if there are "options" .. you should be aware that your life is not always fatally threatened (for example) by a robber.  There are few actions which are more personally terrible to contemplate than taking a life.  Is the content of your wallet more valuable than the life of a teen-age mugger?

If you are responsible for the end of a life, you may spend the balance of your life suffering pangs of conscience  which are much more awful than being robbed. (Or, you may be indicted, and prosecuted.)

  If you are armed, you are  responsible for your actions to a greater degree than if you are not armed.   The courts may find you not guilty, but when you carry a weapon you have assumed a responsibility not only for your self, not only for the legality of your actions, but also for your morality.

It's a fine point, but one which you may rerun in your own mind for the rest of your life.  
"Did I HAVE to shoot?"

When I write these opinions, I put myself in the "same place" as my hypothetical victim.  Every situation is different.

When you choose to arm yourself, you have assumed a responsibility which may be  both moral and fatal.  If you decide that you cannot accept the responsibility for taking a life, you should not arm yourself.

If you think that it would be morally justified to defend your pocket-book equally to defending your life, you should not go armed.

No comments: