Gun control is a hot issue right now. And the term is pushing a lot of people's hot buttons. Emotions are like assumptions, they usually get us into trouble. They need to be kept in submission to reason. There are not just two viewpoints here. The polarization process likes to pose that mirage. Life is more complex than black and white. I am against any infringement of the 2nd amendment. However, I see no reason why private citizens need an assault rifle to defend themselves. That type of weapon is needed on the battlefield because of the nature of fighting against an enemy force. There may be a rare situation sometime for such firepower, but typically a standard rifle, shotgun or pistol will suffice. However, I don't get bent out of shape about this and scream and threaten to hold my breath until I turn blue.
I just read a blog editorial that got me stirred up a little bit. Here's the URL if you want to read it yourself: http://conservativebyte.com/2013/02/homeowner-arrested-for-shooting-at-burglar/. The anti-gun control author was up in arms (pun but not cliché intended) about a man who was arrested for shooting at someone who had been trying to break into his home. The bold headlines made my hackles of righteous indignation stand on end. Then I read the article. The homeowner was not arrested for firing on the burglars in his home. Rather he shot at their car as they were making their getaway. That is reckless endangerment. The second amendment does not give us the right to discharge a firearm in that scenario. Many of the people commenting on the blog were foaming at the mouth. Fortunately, there were a few calm heads who pointed out that this is not a scenario where the man was protecting himself or home. He had already succeeded in scaring them away.
I have to pose one question to those who were jumping onto their ammunition boxes to blame the liberals and police state etc. etc. etc. for this heinous unfairness. What if your neighbor had an invasion and he scared the perps away? And then he ran out into his driveway and fired off a few shots at the departing vehicle. And what if one of his shots found a soft place to reside—in the flesh of your wife or one of you children (or even your dog)? Would you really believe that it was OK because the shooter was just exercising his second amendment rights? I have an idea that you'd be reaching for your own six shooter (or assault rifle) and aiming it toward the protective homeowner. So get it straight please, this law is for your protection, not the bad guys.
Taking away the guns of Americans would be unconstitutional. We were given the right for more than one reason. One was to protect ourselves from foreign invasion. The Japanese were deterred from attacking America because, according to one of their leaders, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. If guns were taken away from the citizens, America would be at the mercy of the world, and I don't see a lot of mercy out there right now. More alarming is the fact that Americans would be at the mercy of a renegade government, something our founding fathers warned against. I hate the fact that people can't love everyone else and that self-defense is a necessity. I don't ever want to use my gun against another human, and I pray that God will keep those evil-doers far from me. I can see where Christians might argue that we should put all of our trust in God and not in bullets. But that is a decision each Christian must make on his/her own and not once forced upon him/her either by bullying wannabe vigilantes or a bunch of politicians who have been granted temporary custody of our nation's reins. The government cannot protect me when the bad guys come along, so they should not make it unlawful for me to protect my home and family.
Is it possible that we can let logic and common sense enter into the controversies between people who have different ideas on gun control or any other hot issue that divides our country right now? I'm not advocating sweeping controversies under the carpet. My goal is that people have meaningful dialogue and understand multiple sides of a discussion. Barbarians settle arguments by simply eliminating people who embrace different opinions. Mankind has come too far to allow barbarian methodologies to become acceptable in our society. And certainly this doesn't fall under the auspices of the "golden rule". So please, when you defend the right to bear arms, do not come across as wanting to exercise that right by plugging a few holes in any person who would like to see less violence in our nation and a bit of restraint applied. As Steven Covey so aptly stated, "Seek first to understand and then to be understood."
Comments