Another Post I Shouldn't Need To Write.

This morning I am sad. I am sad because fifty people are dead with as many if not more injured in yet another shooting on American soil. I am sad because events such as the shooting in Orlando continue to occur. I am sad because events like this, instead of galvanizing us as a nation, continue to drive an ideological wedge between our citizens. And I am sad because these shootings bring out the utter, abject ignorance of the American population.

Let's get a few things straight here:

·         Yes, this was an act of terrorism, committed by an Islamic radical. No, that does not mean that all Muslims are Islamic radicals. So stop perpetuating hate against an entire religious group. And before you jump in and scream that the Koran teaches hate and death and destruction of the infidel, try reading the Holy Bible. Stop hiding behind "Christian values" to condemn another religion. The Bible tells us to keep slaves, and murder in the name of God. Your argument is invalid.

·         Yes, every religion has its radicals. That does not mean that we should simply discount the threat that those radicals pose. This is a subject with which I struggle. We are not permitted to profile, but what kind of mechanism can we employ to weed out individuals like this shooter? Clearly what we have didn’t work as he was investigated by the FBI and not determined to be a credible threat.  

·         Yes, this act was committed with a gun. No, that does not mean that we have to ban guns. The second amendment protects an American citizen's right to bear arms. The fact that a radical few take advantage of that right to commit heinous acts should not curtail our rights as Americans generally. Using that logic we'd have to ban alcohol, sharp objects, and anything else that could be used to harm another.

·         Yes, we have the right to bear arms. No, that does not mean that the right is absolute. It is not even a constitutional right. The second amendment was originally designed to arm a "well- regulated militia," and the right as you know has evolved over time through decisions of the United States Supreme Court. I find it astounding that so many simply decry "Second Amendment!!! I have a right to bear arms!!!" when it comes to gun rights and they have so little knowledge of what that right entails. Read United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939); District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). These two cases paint the clearest picture of the right to bear arms, and in these cases you will learn that the right to bear arms is, in fact, limited. Heller notes that the right to bear arms "is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any matter whatsoever and for whatever purpose," and upholds the holding of Miller that "the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time" and "finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." Heller at p. 54-56. Go educate yourselves.

·         Yes, you have the limited right to carry certain types of weapons. That does not mean that you have the right to carry uncommon or overly dangerous weapons. An AR-15 assault rifle is not of the type of weapon that should be protected. Argue with me all you want, but I challenge anyone to give one legitimate reason why an ordinary citizen should have the right to carry what is, for all intents and purposes, a military weapon. You won't be able to, because there is none.

·         Yes, there are limits on gun ownership. That does not mean that your right to bear arms is being infringed by current limitations, or would be infringed by further limitations. As mentioned above, the right is not absolute. Requiring mental health evaluations, background checks, permits for weapons such as rifles (including AR-15s), mandatory safety courses, etc. does not infringe your rights, so just… stop. The right to free speech is not absolute, either. You cannot incite hate or violence. Ironic, isn't it, that you cannot utter words to incite hate or violence, but are permitted to carry a weapon the very purpose of which is violence. Think about that…. Regulation is not infringement, so stop pretending that it is.  

·         Yes, criminals will find ways to get guns if they really want them. That does not mean that we shouldn't do more to prevent weapons of this nature from entering into a system that allows their dissemination with such ease. This argument against regulation, i.e. that the criminals will get them anyway so why should we regulate further is nothing short of oblivious. Look world-wide and examine the number of gun crimes in other countries and jurisdictions with stronger regulations. Facts don't lie. Limiting the accessibility to weapons (again without banning them) leads to lesser use of such weapons.

·         Yes, there are arguments on both sides of the gun debate. That does not mean that we cannot reach a reasonable comprise to address the problem. If you think there's no gun problem in this country, you're wrong. If you think banning guns is the answer, you're wrong. If you refuse to acknowledge that somewhere there exists a common ground, you're wrong.

A terrible tragedy occurred, lives were lost, and more lives shattered. And once again the gun debate rages on. There should be no debate. There should be action. Something needs to be done. Compromises need to be made. Legislators need to stop sending their thoughts and prayers to victims, and instead send themselves to the drawing board and devise a plan so that sending such thoughts are prayers isn't necessary. We need better protection from our enemies. We need the means by which to find them and apprehend them, to bring them to justice. We need to admit that there is a problem in this nation for which there is no current solution. We need to do a lot of things.  

Right now, all we can do is grieve. So let us do so.

And then, let's get to work.

 

 

© 2016 J.J. Goodman. All rights reserved.