Therefore, let me avoid the actual 'gun control' debate itself, and take a more fundamental approach. This requires a historical review of America. Why is America the way it is? Why do we have the systems we have? What was the purpose? There is no more succinct answer to those questions than what is found in the Preamble of the Constitution:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Most people focus on the nouns such as justice, defense, welfare, liberty, etc... However, my interest today is in the verbs: establish, insure, provide, promote, and secure. There is a word noticeably absent from that list -- prevent. In fact, that word is used only twice in the entire Constitution, neither in reference to crime.
Why is this important?
In a manner of speaking, a democratic society such as ours functions with the understanding that citizens have the right to commit a crime. Much like the Roman civilization and the Byzantines before that, neither of which had the liberties provided by the United States, democratic governments do not prevent crime. They punish it. Every crime is listed and beside it somewhere is the punishment for committing the crime. Therefore, again in a manner of speaking, you are free to commit a crime if you are willing to pay the consequences.
There are two primary responsibilities of citizens who live in such a society. First, you must understand what is legal and illegal so that (if basic morality is not enough of a guide) you have at least a minimum criteria of what this society permits you to do. Secondly, you have a responsibility to trust your fellow citizens to respect your rights under the same law. The moment we lack a comprehensive trust in each other is the moment we lose our liberties as Americans.
Coupled with that philosophy is a necessity to educate citizens, as well as a need to have a fundamental understanding of humanity. While we may trust 99% of our fellow citizens to stop at a red light, we understand there is going to be a lunatic out there who is going to purposely break that law and claim a victim -- a victim which may turn out to be me. I, however, am willing to live under such risk because the alternative is to restrict the freedoms we have in way or another. And I take on the responsibility as a citizen to do what I can to make sure everyone I know understands and follows the rules of the road. My tirades against drinking and driving, for example, are something everyone who knows me has heard. I live in Wisconsin where it is a huge problem, and it saddens me every time I hear someone respond to a drunk and driving fatality news story with, "I would never get THAT drunk."
We saw in Virginia the fraction of humanity that is willing to kill and die for nothing. To him it was just his final rant carried out in action, with a middle finger to the world he hates. He saw it as nothing more.
Those who know me may point out that I do not even own a gun. Therefore, what freedom is really being taken from me if we had more strict gun control laws? Perhaps none. And, for the record, I am for gun control in some aspect because technically any naval warship has "guns" that can shoot for miles and cause incredible damage. Certainly, I can think of no earthly reason my neighbor would need one of those in his back yard. So there has to be a line drawn, and where exactly that line should be will always be under debate, and rightly so. But gun control should not be the focus of preventing violence.
That attitude loses sight of the more fundamental problem. Our government is here to prosecute and punish crime -- NOT prevent it. That is our job as citizens. Therefore, when crime occurs we must look at ourselves as a society and see where we failed. I can think of any number of ways we failed to prevent this tragedy. At the same time, no individual should be held responsible for the actions of another. The murderer himself deserves full blame for the deaths of those bright minds and beloved hearts.
(Allow me to make it clear that when I say our government is not intended to prevent crime, I specifically mean domestic crime. Our government's responsibility to "provide for the common defense" is perhaps the most important task facing it today. We are to protect each other from ourselves -- our government is to protect us from others.)
1 comment:
Bravo, sir, bravo! By asking for a nanny-state, we have forgotten that, chief among all of our duties as citizens, is personal responsibility. What I do, I am responsible for; seems so simple, but in a world where laying blame at another's door is a way of life, it is for many a concept that is as unthinkable as a moon made of barbecued spare ribs.
Post a Comment