Seriously, now: In Utah, are they considering coming after your guns? Taking them away? Is this the day you have rued, the day in which they confiscate that which the Second Amendment gives you?
For it is a slippery slope, they say. You take guns from one person, and the next thing you know, guns are taken from everyone. Big Brother snatched them away.
And, we have legislation like this in Utah? In Utah?!
HB209, sponsored by Rep. Stephen Handy, would take guns from -- among others -- those who show a pattern of threats, and from those who violate protective orders. If it can be shown you pose a risk to yourself or to others, the gun will be taken from you.
Now, let me pause to say I can see the wisdom of not letting everyone have guns. It seems obvious, to me. Do we need a few more shooting like that at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High to convince us that some people just shouldn't be running around with guns? How many shootings must the nation endure before it wakes up and says, Stop the bloodshed, stop the carnage -- take the guns from those who shouldn't have them.
Hey, even the National Rifle Association agrees some red flag legislation is in order. Red flag laws suggest that when good warning exists, the gun should be taken away.
And, this from the NRA? I'm a little surprised. Now, I understand the NRA does not want prior restraint rights violated. And, I'm guessing they have limits on what things they agree are suitable reasons for taking the gun, in the first place.
But, the NRA?
And, I don't know if this is true, but I have read the ACLU has -- at least somewhere and in some fashion -- came out against red flag laws.
What a flip. The NRA and ACLU trading places. The world turning upside down.
What next -- the literal fulfillment of your fears that the government will come after your guns?
I think on HB209, and of how someone who violates a domestic protective order might have their guns taken away. Say you have a leading gun rights activist, and he gets a divorce, and his wife receives a protective order, and he makes a visit, anyway . . .
Away with his guns! It could be said, if they can take guns from someone who has vowed they will have to pry them from his cold, dead fingers, then they can take them from anyone.
I consider whether I favor a red flag law such as HB209. I conclude, I do. I can see the wisdom in it. I do, of a certain, see how it is not wise to let guns fall into the hands of those who cripple society by firing into crowds.
But, what of the First Amendment? I wonder at how we bring the argument to a swift and screeching conclusion as soon as the First Amendment is mentioned. No guns equals no Constitution, for you cannot have one without the other.
So they would tell you.
And, I agree, we should not spurn our Constitution, nor its values.
But, we must also consider on what is wise. Is it true the threat of mass killings would hang over us less if we enacted good red flag laws? Would suicides diminish? Evidence says they would.
If wisdom is that we are better off if guns are taken from some, we should find a path to get there.
Freedom will not be lost. The Second Amendment was established because those who became soldiers back then brought their own guns. If you took them away, you ended the right of the nation to raise an army to defend itself.
Still, the wording is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If you infringe on that right, it is argued, you infringe on the Constitution.
My thought is, we lack the moral conviction to do what is necessary and what is right. If we can see society will be safer if we take guns from those who shouldn't have them, and if we then draw back because we can't square this with the Constitution . . .
Something's got to give.
So, reword the Second Amendment, if you have the courage. Don't do away with it. Don't abolish it. Don't toss it aside.
Just reword it to allow for what needs to be done. Take guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
If something is wise, you do it. If you do not, you lack what it takes to take the path of wisdom. More, you lack the courage to do what is right. If wisdom says do it, you do it. If society will be safer if some people don't have guns, you take them away. Let me ask you, if you saw someone about to shoot into a crowd, and you wrestled the gun away from him, wouldn't that be the right thing to do?
Take the gun away.
It takes great courage to jump a gunman, to wrestle the gun from him. And, so it is with us: It will take courage to take guns from those who shouldn't have them.
After all I've said above, about having the courage to add words to the Second Amendment, if that is what it takes, I'm not all sure that is necessary. The Constitution doesn't just say the right to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed upon. It says that because a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state, that is why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
Back then, the soldier brought his own weapon. If you didn't provide that you weren't going to allow government to take guns away, that same government was going to be in a mess when it came time to go to war.
Today, soldiers' guns are government issue. The war can still be fought even if the soldier doesn't bring his own gun.
Perhaps, you would argue we must have the right to own guns so we can fight the government should it ever convert to an authoritative government. Well, then, ask yourself if taking guns from those who shouldn't have them is going to prevent us, as a whole, from having private weapons to stand up against the government.
I'm thinking no.
(Blog changed and added to 2/14/19)
No comments:
Post a Comment