Reader Hamster brought up some good points in the comments thread of this post about guns last week.
Hamster, good points all. Let me address one or two of them...
The founding fathers knew what an oppressive government could do to individual freedom. It's in part why they left Great Britain. Even if you reject that the entire Bill of Rights describes individual rights, without individual gun ownership, the government can oppress the people whenever it wants. The framers recognized that a man's home, land, and body are sacred and without absolute ownership and protection from the government, he's not really a free man. Guns are not only an actual protection against government tyranny, they are symbolic as well.
Abortion, prohibition, homosexuality, suffrage, are all examples of choice-based population behavior. They are not examples of the aggressive interaction between individuals and their government. You suggested that we should let the people vote on every issue. What if a majority voted to not let women vote? We'd always have a republican President, that's for sure. That's the difference. Gun ownership plays a non-legislative, fundamental role in our lives, regardless of current popular culture trends. Those other things are just life-style choices. Besides, without guns, how would the colonies have thrown off the yolk of British tyranny?
In a less philosophical argument, by our Constitution, our police force can only be reactionary, not preventative. They cannot do anything to anybody who hasn't committed a crime. And that's a good thing. But for that reason alone, individuals must be able to protect themselves from the gun massacres you fear. There's not single mom from Virginia Tech who wouldn't give her own life if just one student or teacher had carried a weapon into class that day and killed that lunatic before he slaughtered 31 or whatever the body count was.
When the police force/government can absolutely guarantee that we are totally safe from gun violence and victimization no matter what, and that the government will never, never try to seize my property unlawfully, then we can discuss a reduction in gun ownership. Until then, don't even think about robbing my house or taking away my guns.
States rights are exactly what the Framers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and all the limits on government it includes. The federal courts have usurped those rights until there is almost no such thing as states rights any more. Yes, let the people decide. Theoretically we already do...every time we vote. The problem with letting every state make up different laws for every issue is that essentially we'd have 50 little fiefdoms operating independently. There should be some consistency when it comes to many issues, but states should be able to alter the laws a little here and there. For instance: everybody can own a gun but the qualifications that must be met vary from state to state.
Lastly, we don't want democracy. Democracy is mob rule. You have democracy when two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner. The form of government we have is a representative republic. At least that's how it's supposed to work. Our representatives write the laws as we direct them to, and the courts interpret them as to constitutionality. If we don't like the laws they write, we throw the bums out at the next election. The problems arise when the judges become activists and rule based on their personal politics rather than on strict constitutionality. Which brings us around to the differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals see activist judges as a means to get their whacky, anti-American agenda into law, where conservatives think that regardless of whether the judge likes the law or not, the only question is, is it constitutional? That's why election and voting are so important. Republicans tend to nominate strict constitutionalists while democrats always nominate activist pinheads who legislate from their bench.
Anyway, I hope this clears up my positions on guns, the role of the judiciary, the Constitution, and individual rights.
Now, I have some ribs and baked beans to eat. Happy 4th TRR readers!
3 comments:
Great post for the 4th!
In the past year or so I started to learn more about the constutution. I have MUCH to learn - I only scratched the surface but I'll give my 2 cents anyway.... I was one who thought maybe it was antiquated. When I started to read I realized how brilliant the Founders were. So many things didn't make sense to me until I realized their purpose for doing what they did. They knew the result of tyranny by majority. They knew government would always (even more that 200 years later in 2008) would tend to become oppressive if they weren't restrained by the constitution.
Right you are, Tracie. Most Americans don't even have a rudimentary understanding of the Constitution and what it means. Dreadful government schools see to that. If citizens understood, there's no way lawmakers would get away with half of what they do. The Constitution, at it's core, is all about individual responsibility, local government, and personal freedom. All things that politicians detest because when citizens exercise them, politicians' power is diminished. Republicans and democrats are disappointingly similar in that regard.
If you think about this document, realize it was written 200 plus years ago and look at the accuracy with which it still governs and legislates, you will be amazed. Problems and issues thatw erent even thought about are still expertly handled by this amazing piece of work. Kudos to the penners and the idea guys behind it. Also a nice tip of the hat to the rest of the guys that have have kept it simple and without major refinement.
Post a Comment