“The Destiny of Man is to unite, not to divide. If you keep on dividing you end up as a collection of monkeys throwing nuts at each other out of separate trees.” T.H. White
And the polarizing goes on over gun safety...
The facts are that the constitution gives us the right to bear arms and mass shootings have become almost a norm in our country. Another fact is that we have two opposing sides that have no interest in putting their collective noggins together to find a way of preserving one while getting rid of the other. It seems to me that what we have here is yet another case of two antagonists who refuse to see that they share a common problem. What is it going to take to wake them up to reality?
I have no problem with shotguns or rifles, or even handguns. I personally enjoy opportunities to practice my aim. And I understand the need for self protection. I do have a problem with assault weapons, however. When the constitution was created I don't believe the founders had any idea that one day there would be those who were so afraid of losing all their toys that they were unwilling to give up the ones that were flagrantly the most deadly and that do the least good. They believed that we would behave as adults with an eye on the preservation of the country as a whole. What I'm seeing is nothing like that.
Contrary to what Washington may wish to believe, the American people are supposed to govern through the ones we hire to do the job for us, namely members of congress and the President of the United States. Instead we are governed by naysayers and instigators with narrow agendas who have perfected the art of inciting whole parts of the populace into taking sides through the manipulation of fear. It is one more way in which we have shown ourselves to be sheep, always following and never leading.
I earnestly believe that an answer can be found if we worked together. We needn't lose our right to bear arms in the struggle to safeguard our children and ourselves. It's painfully obvious that there is absolutely no benefit to keeping the issue polarized. While adults bicker over the issue, our children are dying. At what point will the price be too high to pay?
There once was a time when the two parties that are supposed to represent us were, despite their differences, open to discussion and debate, and they managed to get things done that benefited society. What we have instead are two parties that insist on acting like petulant children on a schoolyard. How can they be said to be doing any of us any good when they aren't paying attention to the reality staring them in the face? When all they're really interested in is themselves, and not us, their employers?
Thanks for writing this much needed article about the divisiveness going on in all levels of government. And I agree about the two parties sticking to rigid agendas that have no hope for reasonable compromise in the direction of progress rather than in the direction of the past that turns out to have been more evil than portrayed. I also agree that there is no use for a rapid-fire military weapon in the hands of citizens other than murdering citizens. Killing a criminal and depriving them of justice has backfired on many.
But I disagree with the Second Amendment. There is nothing in the Second Amendment that allows individuals to own guns other than those they need to hunt for food, essential during those colonial times. No longer valid. The Second Amendment allowed a way that a citizen army could be called up from farmers under quick notice if Britain tried to invade again like they did in 1812. By that time the United States had a standing army and navy.
You failed to mention the rightful owners of guns include the FBI, police forces, Sheriff's offices, and private security guards where guns are needed. The National Guard, the true militias of the Second Amendment and the Armed Forces should be the only ones with weapons of war. Private citizens, unless they are decommissioned and will not fire should not have weapons of war.
The idea of protecting our homes like my father did with a sawed-off shotgun has long become obsolete. There aren't good statistics to prove it, but domestic violence and children killing other children is a huge problem that shouldn't be overlooked when so many are buying guns for "protection."
Security cameras, cheap alarms and background checks are far more powerful than pistols in the hands of those who think they know how to use them at target ranges but don't in tense situations. PTSD is common in police officers that have to take a life.
But I disagree with the Second Amendment. There is nothing in the Second Amendment that allows individuals to own guns other than those they need to hunt for food, essential during those colonial times. No longer valid. The Second Amendment allowed a way that a citizen army could be called up from farmers under quick notice if Britain tried to invade again like they did in 1812. By that time the United States had a standing army and navy.
You failed to mention the rightful owners of guns include the FBI, police forces, Sheriff's offices, and private security guards where guns are needed. The National Guard, the true militias of the Second Amendment and the Armed Forces should be the only ones with weapons of war. Private citizens, unless they are decommissioned and will not fire should not have weapons of war.
The idea of protecting our homes like my father did with a sawed-off shotgun has long become obsolete. There aren't good statistics to prove it, but domestic violence and children killing other children is a huge problem that shouldn't be overlooked when so many are buying guns for "protection."
Security cameras, cheap alarms and background checks are far more powerful than pistols in the hands of those who think they know how to use them at target ranges but don't in tense situations. PTSD is common in police officers that have to take a life.
Ron