In the aftermath of the horrific shooting in Arizona this past weekend, the usual suspects have once again exited the woodwork to spew forth their nonsensical ranting about the politics involved in such acts of violence. This is of course not a time for callous political calculations, nor a time to blather on with lame attempts to affix partisan blame. These murders and assaults were the act of one evil man, and our focus on him should be limited to assuring that his actions are met with the full extent of our laws. Placing any additional focus upon him is what individuals like this are hoping for. We should not care about his motives; he murdered six people and critically wounded several others, including a sitting United States congresswoman. His acts were that of insanity; to try and understand them would be to attempt to understand insanity. We should have better uses of our time. One such more useful endeavor would be to address our gun laws.
As a staunch Madison conservative, I believe firmly in the second amendment. The founders and framers understood that one of the first acts of a tyrannical government is to confiscate the implements of defense needed by the citizenry. The pundits can debate the degree of those weapons in the scheme of the ‘militia’ stated in the second amendment. What cannot be understood in this day and age is what does a citizen need with a magazine of 31 shots? The term ‘assault weapon’ is by definition outside of the scope of the protection afforded by the Constitution. The framers wanted the public to be able to protect and defend; assault is an offense maneuver. To address the sale of these assault weapons whose sole reason for existence is to fire the maximum number of bullets in the shortest amount of time should be the prevailing government action to come from this tragedy. Those who will cry that any such limitations on these weapons are the first step towards a loss of liberty are missing the overriding point and overriding question: does anyone need to fire 31 shots at anyone to provide for their individual protection?
No comments:
Post a Comment