Not only is it a question that is highly emotional but it is also a very complex one. Not just because it touches the subject of life (and death) but also because it tends to be associated with the Complete Freedom of Choice (CFC) of individuals.
And though it may seem like a given for the leader of the CFC to claim high and strong that we should protect that right, as you will see below, it is not that black and white.
Relation between some defenders of that right and religious groups
As you all know by now, in the SMM Generation’s state of mind, the right to Complete Freedom of Choice surpasses any other rights, including the right to religious freedom (see previous article on my blog).
One of the problems with religion, in view of freedom, is that it refuses evolution. Simply by understanding that, it becomes clear that religion and Complete Freedom of Choice are not a natural mix.
It is one of the important reasons why society needs to keep its laic status; so it can remain free to evolve and grow as individuals and general ideas evolve.
By constantly associating the right to keep and bear harms to the fact that it is written in the Constitution of the United States is, in my view, a weakness of those that defend this right because, like religious groups, they show unwillingness to change and evolution.
The United States Constitution was adopted on December 15, 1791. That is more than two centuries ago. Quite a long time when you consider the evolution that happened in that period of time.
‘’A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’’
This is the exact content of the second amendment (please note that there are variations in capitalization and punctuations). Now if we go back to that time, the USA did not have the army it now possesses. It was therefore natural for the States to want to have their citizens well armed in case they needed to defend themselves against potential aggressors which were many at that time.
This is not an unusual situation, even in today’s societies. In Switzerland the structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personal weapons, at home. We see there the same underlying principle that was to be understood from the original constitution of the United States of America: Armed citizens to protect their country in case of an invasion/attack.
However, this can not be why citizens in the US want to bear arms today. Therefore, they are circumventing the question, not debating it.
Where does the right to keep and bear arms stand in front of the CFC?
That might be just the most important question in this debate and the one that leaves me the most disturbed.
I strongly believe that individual should have the right to do whatever they want and that the government is not there to act like a mother or a father to them. However, the right to bear arms somehow conflicts in the right of other individual’s CFC.
A gun or any other arm placed in the hands of someone that is nervous, anxious or a little unbalanced becomes a threat to those around him, whether family or strangers. We have seen too many times, in these last few years, how people can suddenly go crazy and kill a lot of people around them.
I know this is not especially the fault of the second amendment. There are many other factors influencing these people to take arms and go out there on rampages such as video games, movies and music. There will always be unbalanced people and with or without guns and knives, they will commit crimes.
This being said, I think that the easiness with which someone can obtain and carry a gun is not helping and is certainly the number one reason why many people die in these rampages. Without arms, we would certainly reduce the size of the crime (the number of dead people) if we can not stop it completely.
Still, does it justify the government to step in and say: ‘’You don’t have the right to …’’ (in this case carry a gun). I don’t think so. Because the issue in the end is, if you give the government a foot, especially in this day and age, they’ll take a football field on your liberties.
I just wish people were intelligent enough to know that they are better off unarmed. At least I am sure that arms are not the solution of an SMM’s day-to-day life. Love (though it may sound cheesy) and a good education are still the best solutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment