Guns

Oh boy do I love this topic…..  This is one of those hot button topics, which usually ends in competing positions participating in verbal aggression and ends any meaningful dialogue.

The mother of all problems when opinions are involved.  US, WE, ME, YOU, THEM and any other term used as a descriptor when picking a side is usually the catalyst for ignorant thoughts and incorrect conclusions.  I really want to open this topic up and speak to some items that are relevant to reaching common ground.

People view their opinion as absolute and they only argue from a standpoint of right and wrong.  If you have been paying attention, you are aware that right or wrong is just an illusion and it exists only for self-serving purposes.

We just had our appetizers.  Let us dig into the main course, the meat and taters.  The issue here is so obvious and it is the existence of guns.  The reason I say this, the entire argument would not exist if guns were nonexistent as well.

With that being said, let us pretend all guns are no more.  Now people are reaching for swords, bows and arrows, and slingshots.  Wait, let us take it a step further and add one more removal, now sticks and rocks are the go to tool to paint violence.  Okay, so we remove any inanimate object people use to hurt each other.  Now it seems people are choking and punching others with their hands…

Do you see the masterpiece I am painting?  Let me assist those who may be confused, please infer the causation of violence with people, instead of the correlation with weapons.  Of course, people reach for a gun that is the most efficient tool to accomplish the task.

If one’s task was to create fear, hurt, or kill.  Violence is not new.  It did not present itself when the use of the first gun occurred in 1364.  Please do not confuse the-create fear, hurt, or kill statement as an absolute.  I understand guns exist for other reasons as well.  Of course, self-defense and protecting an individual, state, or nation is among the many uses of weapons, just stay with me.

Now that is out of the way, please allow me to enlighten you further.  Evolution occurs in all aspects of life and this happens with technology as well.  Yes, guns are a form of technology.  For the younger readers that term is not reserved for your smart phone, computer or other electronics.  As people began to develop guns they wanted to make the tool more efficient, which implies to all types of technology.

For the sake of this paragraph, the purpose of a gun or any weapon for that matter is to deter.  A deterrent in the form of pain and up to the loss of one’s life is a very important and efficient tool of protection.  The possession of a weapon is a proactive approach to security, whether its purpose is personal, organizational, or governmental is a non-factor.

The success of being proactive rather than reactive is large motivation factor when choosing a weapon as a deterrent.  A personal opinion cannot change this fact or the effectiveness of a weapon in the form of deterrent.

To continue, weapons can also serve multiple purposes.  Weapons are not reserved for sole intent of violence, in the form of infliction, protection, or as a deterrent.  Hunting, collecting, sharpshooting, target shooting, competition, entertainment or just plain fun, are many other things individuals can do with weapons.

Although, we should change the name of the item to something that is not associated with violence, as this allows others to have and spread misleading information in the form of propaganda.  If individuals use items for purposes other than violence then the definition changes and it is no longer a weapon.  Word association is important because all definitions are reflective of the individual who defines them.

I am very very pro-gun.  I do not hunt, I very seldom carry, and rarely target shoot anymore.  This does not change my fascination with guns or the importance and relevance of their role in American Society.  I just introduced another issue within the pro-gun/anti-gun argument.  This issue, its relevancy and legitimacy as it exists in our constitution in the form of a protected right.

Some assume since the muzzle-loader was the weapon in existence at the time of the conception of the second Amendment, it is the only type of gun included in the Amendment.  I am a believer in the papers of our great nation being living and breathing.  This allows, wait for it, the evolution of thinking from generation to generation in the form of laws that best represent society and the people within.

This has led to great items such as, the abolition of slavery, extension of voting rights to others, multiple items that limit and remove discrimination, so on and so forth… Like all things, evolution is inevitable and creates progress.  Now, quickly before I lose anyone on the left, we must evolve with limitations.

It is very important to understand the second amendment in its entirety and to remove oneself from an argument based solely on an opinion, for or against.  In case you were confused, it reads;

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.

Now the Forefathers, in their remarkable and incredible foresight, understood if people were not able to protect themselves and the government was able to disarm its citizenry, how was this new institution going to prevent a tyrannical influence from forming?

With this addition to our rights, it allowed citizens to have a deterrent from a government who would try.  That is it.  No interpretation, no alternate meaning, it is and must stay absolute.  This transcends opinion and creates a fail-safe in the event of a necessary revolution from the government creating tyrannical rule.  Modern Americans have become naive and have yet to experience war within their sovereign borders.

Our way of life is so great we lost the ability to survive and the understanding of what survival is.  We went from a life of survival to a life of entertainment and pursing skills, expertise and worthless habits, which endanger the very existence of our species.

I can point to many flaws in this new and modern reality; however, this is not the blog.  Now that we have educated all on the right to own a gun, let us push further as I am eyeing desert.

People who are pro-gun are not anti-critical or supportive of gun violence.  They find gun violence to be as disgusting and unacceptable as anyone else does.  When an individual loses their life to such a preventable atrocity, it hurts and it is extremely sad.  A person that someone loved has been removed from our world.

My heart goes out to any family who has lost a loved one.  I know the pain, as my cousin was murdered and is no longer with us.  We need to figure out how to limit the exposure of gun violence.  Removing guns and adding restrictions will not change anything.  This has its own limits and will only remove guns and limit guns to people who are currently operating responsibly.  Am I sure?  100%

Last time I checked taking a human life was illegal but still occurs.  Not only should the mere thought of selfishly taking one’s life be a deterrent in itself but we have a law in place to prevent such acts and sanctions to impose when the law is violated.

So why would someone argue from a position which believes by removing guns, unnecessary deaths from guns will end.  So we will add yet another law for individuals to break.  Yes, I am still 100% sure.

The issue that both sides should focus on is not guns.  Quit fighting and bickering over something so trivial.  Should everyone have guns, no.  Should limits be in place to prevent those individuals from having them, yes.  Look that is solved.

Now one side can stop yelling about the other taking their guns and the other can quit screaming about how the other wants everyone to have a gun without restrictions.

I am pro-gun because I am pro-life.  I do not own a gun to take human life.  I will forever hate myself if I must take such drastic measures to protect my loved ones or others from such a threat.  If that is what occurs, I will make that choice every time, without hesitation.

This is the way I think and the way the majority of the world thinks.  I would find it hard to believe a person would have fault in protecting themselves or others, as this is our first and most primal instinct.  I have introduced the real issue of the violence that plagues all societies, not just America and not just this specific period in history.

I carefully explained why guns and other weapons are not at fault and introduced the connection of people who create these issues.  It is not the tool they chose to take a life.  The problem is a conscious decision to take a human life.   This is the real problem.  The problem our leaders need to focus on.

Because this is such a hot button topic, it creates a side.  Either you are for or against guns.  This of course catapults politics front and center.  Both sides are distracted by who is yelling the loudest and what group has more followers.  Why intimidate, why hurt, and why kill.  If you find the deep seeded root of those questions, you can then begin to treat the true cause of violence, which is the choice.

Now the main course is through, let us have our desserts.  Would you deny the protection a gun could offer, if your life was threatened?  Would you fail to protect someone who has strong beliefs against guns?

All things require dialogue; through this, we can find common ground.  Do not dismiss the choice of gun ownership but at the same time do not ignore the decision to refrain from ownership.  These both are very important as they represent our countries true meaning, freedom.  The freedom to choose, neither right nor wrong, just a way life.

The real threat is a government entity taking away a constitutional guaranteed right, while people blatantly ignore that overreach.  Regulate, yes.  Remove, never.  That is something I cannot and will not support.

Just as I will defend any right that you have, you should do the same for others.  Its not the right that is important, its the illusion of a government that believes it possesses authority to remove such a right.  That should worry us all.