In the wake of the tragic events in Newtown, CT last year, a
lot of the impetus for new gun control has been justified by politicians,
activists and pundits saying "if new laws save 'just one life," it’s
worth sacrificing the rights of law abiding gun owners.
As someone who is relatively new to the realities of
fatherhood, it strikes me as reprehensible that children, more specifically
dead children, are used as a rallying cry or podium with which to stand on to
justify further infringements of civil rights. Does this mean that if I oppose
such legislation, that I am less of a father? Does it mean that I don't care
for the safety and welfare of children?
No. Not by a long shot. And its time that gun owners,
especially those who have children, come out swinging on this issue and counter
these disgusting displays of emotional diarrhea masquerading as common sense
and compassion. Gun owning parents need to be front and center on this issue
and have a clear, decisive answer to this extremely and irresponsibly loaded
question when asked.
And the answer, in no uncertain terms is a resounding
no.
Even if your flawed, opportunistic legislation saves one
hundred lives, it’s not worth sacrificing the rights and legacy that men and
women, people exceedingly more esteemed and honorable than any of these
politicians and pundits, fought and died for since our nation's inception. The
Second Amendment is a Constitutionally guaranteed civil right, but it is more
than that - when the framers put pen to paper establishing the right to bear
arms, they recognized that self-preservation and preservation of our freedoms
is a concept far greater than being able to possess a rifle - they recognized
that its a fundamental HUMAN RIGHT to have the ability to defend life, liberty
and yes, property from the evils of tyrannical regimes and the evils inherent
in the human condition.
I expect and await disdainful responses to my position: I
embrace them. I embrace them not because I don't care about the life of my son
or the security and safety of children. In fact, my position is rooted in
intense respect for his rights and for the rights of his and successive
generations of his peers. I have no idea how Charlie is going to view the
politics of the Second Amendment and I will allow him to make up his own mind
on the matter. What I will do however, is teach him that life is a precious and
fleeting commodity, more valuable than any amount of money and more important
than the whims of an opportunistic legislator who says otherwise.
No amount of carnage should ever justify the repression of
human and civil liberties. The Constitution made it so these liberties are
non-negotiable and not subject to any opinion polls or majority (mob) desires.
With all due respect and deference to those whose families have suffered as a
result of gun violence, their pain in no way justifies rolling back our rights.
What it does justify and require, is a conversation based on a deeply and
national introspection of that state of this country and its humanity.
You see, gun violence is not the result of our ownership of
firearms or exercise of the Second Amendment, it is the symptom of a society
whose reliance and pursuit of material gain has superseded any semblance of
humanity or respect thereof. Maybe its technology, maybe it’s the national
addiction to reality television and or celebrity worship - better and more
advanced minds than mine ought to examine these topics in greater detail. What
is patently obvious to me is that we have devolved culturally, to a society
that cares only for individual gain. At the height of the Roman Empire, blood
sports united all classes to cheer on the mindless carnage at the Coliseum.
Today, one can't have a drink at a pub without a crowd of people entertained by
the sight of modern day gladiators brutalizing each other in a UFC cage match.
As Americans, we glamorize violence and celebrate the worst behavior of our
celebrity culture and do so at the cost of our very souls. Ironically, most of
those who cheer for the bloodletting would never serve in the armed forces, let
alone be involved in a physical altercation themselves - that in and of itself,
is very revealing.
Anyone who knows me on a personal level knows that I am not
a religious man, in fact, I often identify as an Atheist when the question of
religion is brought to bear. As irreligious as I am however, I do have
tremendous respect for the teachings and dogma contained in most of the major
religions we protect and celebrate under the Constitution. Such beliefs and
teachings ought to ground people in the notion of tolerance and respect for
their fellow man. It is for that reason, I find it strange, that in a nation so
religiously diverse, with so many that are teaching tolerance and the love of
one’s fellow man, that we are so insular and uncaring when it comes to those we
don’t know. Religious or not, we ought to have the decency to care for one
another and to look out for the most vulnerable in our communities, instead of
relying on an often inept and callous government “authority” to do it for us.
Community is not a special department in any municipality, but an unwritten
social contract signed by all members of the human race, American or otherwise.
As a community of gun owning parents, as Americans concerned
about the very nature of the freedoms we see threatened every day, we have an
obligation to speak for our children. When confronted by emotionally charged questions
such as these, we must stand with pride and conviction and deliver an answer
that preserves the rights of future generations. I intend to speak for my son,
in telling them that no amount of tragedy is worth even considering the
sacrifice of his liberties, that his life is worth defending, that his
freedoms, all of them, are worth fighting for.
I urge everyone to do the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment