This is not about gun control. This is not about the second amendment. This is not about liberals and conservatives or big government versus limited government.
This is about common sense. It’s about going to a theater and knowing that the only sounds of gunfire will be part of the movie.
When something like what happened in Oregon occurs over and over, the President shouldn’t have to beg for something to be done. Yet again, here we are in the same shocked and angered state we were in after Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Lafayette, and Charleston. The cycle has become eerily similar. People die, the President speaks, the country grieves, and we hold our breaths and wait for the next bloodbath to inevitably come.
This is about common sense. It’s about going to a theater and knowing that the only sounds of gunfire will be part of the movie.
When something like what happened in Oregon occurs over and over, the President shouldn’t have to beg for something to be done. Yet again, here we are in the same shocked and angered state we were in after Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Lafayette, and Charleston. The cycle has become eerily similar. People die, the President speaks, the country grieves, and we hold our breaths and wait for the next bloodbath to inevitably come.
While we wait, we talk. It seems as if the knee- jerk reaction after shootings, usually from the Liberal left, is a call for stricter gun control. The belief is that if we limit people’s access to guns, they won’t be able to carry out military-like assaults, and stronger laws will prevent people with mental illness from buying guns.
Anti-gun-control Americans, usually a part of the Conservative Right, see gun control, not as a matter of public safety, but as a violation of basic American rights. The second amendment guarantees that citizens have the “right to bear arms.” Revoking or limiting this right would be a gross overstep on the part of the government. If they can take away the second amendment in the name of safety, what else is to stop them from taking other rights away in the name of “national security?” (We still remember the PATRIOT ACT, right?) This is a valid concern, and changing the Constitution of the United States should never be taken lightly.
There exists a point where people are willing to give up or restrict some freedoms for the promise of security. I believe many Americans have reached that point in regards to guns.
Of course, Congress has done nothing. To be sure, it is a complicated issue, and any attempts to dismiss the complexity of the problem usually fail to address valid concerns. But one thing is certain. Something must be done.
I said in the beginning that this is not about gun control. But the country as a whole needs to come to a place where we understand that gun control alone will not solve the problem, but gun control may be part of the solution.
President Obama said in his address after Umpqua that “countries like us” have solved this problem, and he cited Australia and England as examples. Why don’t we look at what they did? Why don’t we try to understand how they have worked to keep their citizens safe? Why can’t we at least begin the dialogue and discuss other options instead of hearing the phrase “gun control” and going into our respective trenches to fight on our side of the debate?
We are neither Australia nor England. We possess a spirit that is in some aspects unique, even exceptional, to our nation. However, we can not be so ignorant and obstinate as to believe that nothing is wrong. Something is broken and in desperate need of repair.
How many more schools, churches, malls, and movie theaters have to be attacked before we decide we are ready for change? How long do we have to hold our breaths?
No comments:
Post a Comment