We Should be More Careful Who We Give the Tool of Death

   The minimum, is to take guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
   At least, try to do that much.
   But, we will need to get away from the mentality that everyone has the right to a gun, if we are to enact national red-flag laws.
   I think of the Wild West, and of how they had similar debate. I believe the courts back then ruled that when the Second Amendment says Congress shall make no law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, that doesn't mean guns can be in all places at all times.
   No, you can restrict their usage. And, the earlier Americans did. If you rode into Dodge City, you were required to turn your gun in, same as you were in a good lot of the cities and towns in the Wild West.
   Gun control, circa 1870.
   Guns are a limited right. The Second Amendment says, "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."
The security of the nation -- this free state -- is not at risk by taking guns from those who make threats.
   Guns are a limited right. It is the right of the people, at large, to keep and bear guns. And, you as an individual have the right to a gun -- unless you do something to restrict that right.
   Like, make a threat.
   Guns are the tools of death. That is what they are used for. If you give indication that that is too much responsibility for you, the gun should be taken away. This is not like a car. The car is an instrument of travel. Its purpose is to take someone from one location to another. As opposed to that, the gun's purpose is to kill, largely. If we are to be careful with who we give the right to drive, we should be evermore careful who we give the right to kill.
 

Is it Safer to Live there than it is to Cross Through Mexico?

  Today, do a little thinking about the human trafficking we are concerned about.
  Now, President Trump, Utah Sen. Mike Lee and much of the nation want the migrants to take their asylum in Mexico. They argue, there is no need to come to America. Just take your asylum in Mexico.
   The rest of us ask, is it save for them there? Think of this: On one hand, we tell them they are fine staying in Mexico, taking their asylum there. And, on the other hand, we tell them they are endangering themselves and their children by crossing Mexico to get to the United States, for the human traffickers are picking them off, raping them, forcing them into labor, etc.
   So, on one hand, we tell them to take their asylum in Mexico? And, on the other hand, we tell them it isn't safe to cross Mexico, due to the human traffickers? So, is it safer to stay there and live in the land of the human traffickers than it is to merely cross that land?
 
 

Charity isn't Telling Someone You Cannot Help

  With the immigrant, comes the human trafficking. As they come north to America, the traffickers pick them off.
   All of which is being used as an argument against immigration, at least undocumented immigration. They should not be crossing Mexico, subjecting themselves to the trafficking. It is unsafe, and it is wrong. What kind of parent would put his children through these dangers, anyway?
   So goes the argument.
   What do we do? Do we say the human trafficking is just one more reason not to bring these people to America? I wonder at these immigrants, leaving Guatemala and such places, sometimes because of domestic violence, their husbands and fathers forcing them to seek homes far away from their reach.
   I think of the children living in the streets of Columbia, and imagine social workers directing them to the U.S.
   Only to be picked off and trafficked as they come.
   What do we do? Do we tell them not to come? I wonder.
   Perhaps, if we can see that people benefit by coming to the United States -- if they are escaping domestic violence, government oppression or whatever -- then we should help them. Will we, instead, tell them, "No, you cannot come. If we let you come, the reality is that you will be sex-trafficked, and work-trafficked, and human trafficked. So, the harsh reality is that you just shouldn't come. It just isn't safe. This is for your own good."
   We can tell them that, and leave it at that -- or help them. If they are in danger of being trafficked, why not help them avoid that? Charity isn't leaving them in their dilemma, but helping them out of it. They have a problem, and we aren't helping them at all if we just tell them we can't help them and don't want them to try to come on their own because they will just get hurt, and that will just make things worse. "Just stay there in Guatemala, and make your way through your problems there, best you can. That's what we're going to have to recommend. It's the best thing for everybody, anyway -- really!"
   No, helping another person requires helping them, not telling them to make-do in their dump, and making excuses as to why we shouldn't help them. We sometimes go to war to help other people, to give them freedom. But, in this case, we seem to be turning the helpless away.
   What would be so wrong with saying, "Listen, if you are going to be trafficked, we would like to help you avoid that. We will come right down to Guatemala and help bring you to America."
   What would be so wrong with that?
   Instead of reaching out with hands that care, will our hands only slap them back? Will we only say, "Get away. Stay away. Take care of your own problems."

Everybody who has a gun

 becomes the sheriff.

Gun Owners Shot Joseph Smith

  I belong to a faith that has decided guns will be prohibited from its meetinghouses. Many of the members of this church are staunch gun advocates, and are not comfortable with the new policy.
  As I thought on this the other day, it occurred to me that our first modern-day prophet, Joseph Smith, was the victim of a band of gun owners. They came to the jail he was being held in, and killed him.
  A band of gun owners.
  And, I would quite imagine, what they did, they thought was right. They were just administering their brand of  justice. Now, therein lies the danger. The gun becomes a badge. Those who wear it, consider themselves administrators of justice. A thousand sheriffs, and they come with different interpretations of who the bad guys are.
   To some, Joseph Smith was the bad guy. So, they shot him.

We make ourselves gods when we make ourselves gun owners. We get to choose who lives and dies.

Harry Said it is Okay to Shoot, as Long as the Right Person is Shot

   "There is nothing wrong with shooting, as long as the right people get shot." -- Harry Callahan
   One of the dangers of gun ownership, is that we start thinking some people deserve to die. As gun users, we have to decide who we will kill. Who will we ticket as being worthy of death?
   The problem comes when someone decides someone is worthy of death who actually isn't. Most every murder, for example, is of a person someone decides is not worthy of life.
   We make ourselves gods when we make ourselves gun owners. We get to choose who lives and dies. If we were all of Godly judgement, that would be fine. But, just putting guns in everyone's hands is going to leave them in a lot of hands that should never be making such judgments.