Lawyers, Guns, Money...
In the wake of millions of wailing patriots exhibiting their concerns across the nation around gun legislation, I find it even more challenging to digest opposition overtures decrying their two driven points: to not 'tread' on their 2nd amendment rights, and that guns don't kill people, 'people' kill people...I have however yet to experience any active solutions to follow their impassioned words, words that I recognize are valid to them and I do not discredit, but words that I nonetheless fundamentally disagree with, for the following reasons:
The Constitution was written at a time when a ragtag fledgling part-time army with very few weapons and even lesser skills, were under the tyrannical shadow of a high-powered monarch with an immensely efficient war machine under his command. The firearms amendment was more relevant then than it will likely ever be again in our country's history. It was also written at a time that every 5 slaves would equal 3 white citizens for taxation purposes within the garment of the 3/5 Compromise. A very antiquated time.
What I find particularly challenging is that there is little to no compromise when it comes to who or what kills people after they are dead - the weapon itself, or the one that fired it. Both kill, plain and simple - The offender, the weapon, and third, us - for blatant inaction. If tank cannons weren't regulated, sold on the marketplace, purchased by someone who then devastated a community, would we not agree that said cannon should be leashed? Some years from now, when a manufacturer engineers a hand-held laser device that disintegrates its target, a purchaser goes out and devastates a community with it, would we not agree that said weapon too should be leashed?
Another pivotal discussion in Congress right now as a result of Russian collusion in American politics through the vehicle of social media, is the issue of regulating the social media platform used, as an 'instrument' of accountability itself, the 'gun' as it were, not *only* those 'persons' that would seek to utilize it in such a way again. That is to say, holding an 'instrument' accountable is a preventative measure. holding 'persons' accountable will be by and large a reaction, far more likely to occur after the damage is already done. A dead person will not deem or politicize a shooter and their weapon to be mutually exclusive, they will just be dead and not want to be. There are now more guns than people in America per FBI numbers. Roughly 400 million. These numbers are rapidly growing, and are only those that are registered, unregistered firearms numbers are of course even more staggering. With this in mind I ask only this: where do those that wish not to touch the second amendment begin to seriously rethink the numbers and types of guns in this country?
When are too many guns too many guns is my question?
Or will it only be serious enough when your children come home terrified and in tears from things they see and hear that we are allowing to become normalized language in our academic strata, as we carry a new found complacency with an obtuse mindset of, "this is just how it is". Is this really the example we wish to set forth as protectors? An impotent response to all this while gun manufacturers pull in record numbers and pimp us all? Or, will it only be serious enough when the day comes that your child, spouse, mother, father, brother, or sister, doesn't make it home at all?
They won't care in the slightest if it was the shooter or the weapon that killed them. We must develop a plan to address both ends of this, period. Lest we fail the future, and may as well be pulling the damn trigger ourselves.
Freelance writer, musician, photographer, and philanthropic traveler.