It’s been seven years since “Littleton”, and there has been no federal action to prevent similar rampages. The issue of gun “control” never seems to get resolved, even in a society wracked with gun violence.
The reason is: it’s not about firearms. It’s about rights. We can’t agree on new gun laws (or helmet laws or seat belt laws) because we can’t agree about people’s rights.
The private ownership of guns in the U.S. is clearly obsolete today. The militia has been replaced by the standing army. The armed citizen defending home and family has given place to the justice system. And the notion of an armed citizenry that can stand up to tyrants in Washington D.C. has been shown to be foolish idealism. Ask David Koresh! Randy Weaver. Or Robert E. Lee.
Even less defensible is the idea of gun use as recreation. In a society where people are shot and killed every day, guns --especially handguns-- are a bane. An evil that far outweighs any recreational value they might have.
Having come to this conclusion, we find ourselves in the same situation as the mice who decided to hang a bell on the cat. We ought to ban guns. But how...? How can millions of guns be taken from legitimate owners who insist that they need them and have the right to own them?
Until we answer this question --do people have the right to own guns?-- we simply look ridiculous whining about trigger locks and unregulated sale of guns at gun shows!
Do we have the right to own guns? Where do we get our rights anyway? From the constitution? From the supreme court? From God?
If human rights come from God, as Jefferson asserted, then rights are based on human nature and are unchangeable. Our right to own guns comes from our God-given right to defend ourselves.
If our rights come from the Supreme Court, then we indirectly vote on our rights every four years when we elect the guy who selects new Supreme Court justices! Remember that in November 2008!
But if our rights come from the constitution, then our rights are always in transition, aren’t they? They’re always changing. They’re constantly being redefined as society evolves.
Guns, slaves, states’ rights-- they all become obsolete as the years go by and as conditions change.
If human rights evolve --if the right to bear arms has become obsolete in modern society-- then couldn’t the same argument be made for abolishing other rights that are arguably so harmful to society-- parents’ rights, property rights, and especially the un-regulated freedom of speech?
Now there’s a scary thought!