As usual, before I begin, I do encourage my readers to carefully do their own research. Generally, for a post of this nature, I would warn about the sensitive subject. Unfortunately, I believe it to be a desensitized subject.
The Animal Kingdom
Notes on our Founding Fathers Ideas
Possible Solutions
Conclusion
For as long as existence itself, where there are predators, there are gruesome outcomes. For less sentient beings, it’s a battle of food, livelihood, procreation, & evolution. For more sentient beings, it’s all of the former plus the ability to think and contemplate.
Tons of animals kill their kind, and tons of animals kill other types for food or survival. However, it seems humankind is the only species that tend to do it for no reason. It is not the best practice, but our species has participated in this act since our inception.
In America today, we attribute these types of problems to weapons and the right to bear arms; however, countries that don’t allow guns — unlike America — suffer from other formers of attacks (in Britain & China there are many notable “mass knifings”). In countries where peace isn’t part of the hopeful plan, it’s not mass anything; it’s just another day.
I think it’s terrible. When I turn on the news, my first thought is, “who died today.” In a non-satirical way, I believe mass killings in America to be more common than Budweiser in a grocery store. What’s worse is there appears to be no real benefit in the act. I mention the idea of benefit because of the clause of the American Constitution that outlines the right to bear arms.
Context, a thing that is often missing these days, really helps interpret “the right to bear arms.” At the time that clause was written, America had no army. America was undergoing invasion and control by Britain. American’s experienced loss of actual privacy and security under The Quartering Act, which allowed British soldiers to take refuge wherever they wanted. The Americans needed to form militia — comprised of ordinary citizens — to defend their budding democracy. At this time, “arms” were muskets that made one shot in between one-minute reloading intervals. The key takeaways are “arms” were different and there was a cause behind it — both in defense of self and community.
Right now, I think there are radical — too far from practical — opinions on both party lines with each cascading derivation from the center. I also believe it would be a dangerous and expensive effort to eradicate guns from Americans. But, I do want to highlight what I believe to be appropriate and inappropriate given the circumstances before adding my conclusion.
Appropriate: A single shot rifle used to hunt dear.
Inappropriate: Owning an automatic or semiautomatic weapon for hunting (I mean, how bad of a shot do you need to be for that?)
Appropriate: A armed service member defending democracy abroad.
Inappropriate: Storming public sanctuaries with weapons for no apparent purpose.
Appropriate: Defending your family during an actual home invasion.
Inappropriate: Firing into a crowd because you had a bad day.
Those are some distinctions I believe should hold to anyone of sound mind. I also think if any of the proprietors of our Constitution read that list, not only would they agree, they would be offended that the inappropriate scenarios are not only non-imaginative but part of everyday life.
So what are the solutions? Well, I have given up hope on the idea that the entire American population can always choose the appropriate. I have also have given up hope on the idea that you could remove arms from Americans. That corners me into thinking the only approach is a pragmatic one. The pragmatic solution involves State Governments, not the Federal. I believe that states should choose what they want and live with the outcomes. For example, a state like Maine could do an assault weapon ban and create an outlandish 25-to-life sentence for possession, while allowing single-shot rifles for hunting. At the same time, Texas or Oklahoma could welcome it all. The point is that people down the road can choose what kind of America they want to live in and not have to worry about taking their kids or themselves to the theater, or supermarket, or goddamn baseball game. Their choice is where they decide to settle and what that place regulates in this solution.
Some things are too big to stop, Guns and America are one of them. The best approach, the most thoughtful approach, and the most effective method is to create State Laws on a state-by-state basis, voted by the people in each state that regulate or choose not to regulate guns within their borders. I don’t think this is an idealist or radical perspective; I think it is logical.
I personally don’t care for comments of the likes: “it can’t be done”, “it would cost too much money”, “it’s impossible”, “there are more important matters”, “it would be too time-consuming”. Maybe somewhere else, but not America, whose modus operandi is accomplishing what others doubt.
Enjoy the read?
Leave a clap or comment
Share with friends or on your favorite social platform
