Tuesday, March 09, 2010

If guns are outlawed only outlaws will...

Gun ownership is an undisputed right (for most of us) here in these United States. In many states, however, the right to own a gun is left up to the sole discretion of a local official or police chief who can make it very, very difficult if he/she so chooses. This means that a "roadblock" exists even for an upstanding, law-abiding member of the community who may decide to exercise his/her constitutional right to purchase and own a gun for self protection. This "roadblock", while logical and necessary in keeping guns out of the hands of crooks and the mentally unstable, has an undercurrent of unintended consequences. The most notable of these unintended consequences is the intimidation of the general populace into thinking that the barrier to gun ownership is just too great and hence this right is out of their reach. One can readily see how this may lead to a mindset that leaves many good and decent citizens discouraged and defenceless and thus unable to defend their homes and families.
Thus, one may logically conclude that a ban on gun ownership exists without the passage of a constitutional amendment.
This method of "soft abridgement" of our rights must be challenged whenever and wherever it exists. Unfair and heavy-handed restrictions are a serious encroachment on our basic civil rights. The choice to own a weapon should be every law-abiding, mature and responsible citizen's basic constitutional right and this pro-forma ban must be done away with.
Do we just allow everyone to have a weapon? Of course not!
One way to restore this choice and eliminate the unintended soft abridgement is for state and federal government to actively reach out and identify long-standing decent members of the community by the empowered officials or police. Maybe by periodically notifying these constituants of this right by mail or scheduled town meetings on the subject.
Just a further observation on this topic.
Every once in a while, there will be an incident of gun violence and the media and ultra liberal utopianists immediately fall into the usual knee-jerk reactionary call for further restricting gun ownership. The Constitutional amendment guaranteeing this right, by way of many judicial challenges, has been upheld many, many times. This fact does not seem to bother the state-control enthusiasts in the least.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of citizens are responsible and law-abiding and just a tiny minuscule number are either predators or wackjobs does not compute in their odd sense of logic. So what is their liberal/progressive solution to safeguard the public from gun and terror violence? Their solution is to strip away the constitutional rights of the 99.99% of us responsible law-abiding citizens. Not only does this NOT MAKE SENSE but it reflects our federal and local government's lack of responsibly ENFORCING THE LAWS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. Their excuse... the Constitution was meant to be a "malleable" instrument! I strongly suspect that most people who have any semblance of common sense recognize this just for what it is..an EXCUSE to go the EASY route.
Politicians who treat their jobs as regular 9 to 5's, do not want the complications of upholding their constitutionally required duties. They find it's easier to regulate and control the 99.99% of us into forced compliance than to be burdened by having to faithfully enforce the laws to prevent the crooks and wackjobs from repeatedly defying the laws on our books.
It's the current "low-hanging fruit" theory of both law enforcement and political oversight that ultimately allows career crooks and wackjobs to prey on the rest of us lawful 99.99%.

2 comments:

Renegade Eye said...

I'm personally agnostic on that issue. I don't have strong views, one way or another.

As a socialist, I'd have to agree with the direction of your post.

beakerkin said...

Guns don't kill people, Communists with guns kill plenty. Make America a safer place medicate commies today.