Amendment II: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
I actually agree with this, especially the "well-regulated" part. In fact, I'll narrow it down even further and say I like the "well-" part. Yes, I recognize that it might be a good idea in the abstract for ordinary citizens to be able to arm themselves against a tyrannical government. The problem is that the definition of "tyrannical" has become so debased that there are people in this country who seem to think that encouraging (not mandating, but encouraging) people to eat vegetables, or trying to assure that all Americans have access to health care and a basic standard of living, constitutes tyranny.
You know what tyranny is? It's being a Congresswoman who isn't able to meet one's constituents without being shot in the head. It's being a student who can't go to class without being afraid that today is the day one of your classmates will snap. It's being a young black male who can't walk down the street without being accosted and shot by someone who regards your mere existence as a threat. It's not tyranny-by-government, but it's tyranny-by-gun-anarchy, and that's just as bad. If you can't live your life without fear of someone who's mentally unstable, or just plain angry, taking a shot at you, that's tyranny of a different kind.
The other day a gunman
who apparently felt "bullied and teased" killed seven people at a small Christian college in California. Forgetting for a moment that a man of 43 years of age should be able to deal with "feeling teased", this shooting is the fruition of the "But I'm mad NOW!" mindset so brilliantly written by the creators of
The Simpsons in this scene where Homer goes to buy a gun:
So what's it going to take? How many college students and Congresswomen and mothers and fathers and children have to die before the so-called "pro-life" Republicans start seeing the incongruity between the mindset that had George W. Bush flying back to Washington to force the continued ventilation of a corpse in Florida and the insistence that anyone -- schizophrenic, terrorist, domestic abuser, anger-management flunkout -- should be able to pack heat at any time, for any reason? How many casualties of the right-wing worship of guns do there have to be before even bringing up the subject stops being politically toxic?
Labels: gun nuts, just another outrage
No matter. It is rather doubtful that further gun regulation will be tolerated. It is cultural. In this country we have a long standing tradition of being armed. It is already annoying enough to have to jump through hoops just to buy a long gun much less a handgun.
I'm just sayin'......
I wrote;
I don't know what to do about Gun violence. I have no magic panaceas. But, the violence is reaching levels where it has to be debated. Distressingly the pro-gun argument techniques oft times devolve into: Ahem! Second Amendment. QED. So therefore, and as such as. Because shut up. Also.
Americans do not want to live in a society with this Sword of Damocles (The Barrel of Right Wingers) hanging over our heads. Of being gunned down at school, at a yoga center, at a funeral. Of being mistaken for throwing gang signs when speaking with a hearing disabled person, of being killed by your abusive spouse or of finding oneself at the end of a Birthers AR-15.
3 years ago after "a quiet non-violent man who kept to himself" walked into a New York state Immigration center in April and proceeded to murder 13 people before killing himself and another typical shooter, a quiet man who kept to himself, but whose warped and frustrated mind built up edifices of anger, which exploded into a murderous rage, killing 3 women and the wounding of 9 others while they were in a yoga class.
My sentiments haven't changed and the debate about guns in America hasn't advanced and we are all still under the Gun...