Recently, someone commented that all I wanted to do was write about the lives of others in this blog? Do you believe this to be true?
Lately, when I'm stumped for things to write about, I look at the television and can always find something I care about. And today is no exception. But this doesn't always give me a topic to write about. So I dig into the dumpster of life and talk about people from my past. Again, today is no exception....
- - - - - -
Years ago, I was turned on to shooting sports by a friend who helped me get my first firearm. Although I haven't used it in years, I still have respect for a right wing argument that leaves guns in private hands. I see that private ownership of firearms can force a government to respect a ballot box. But what happens when one side unilaterally disarms? Can they protect their rights in a pinch? To me, the answer is no. If our cultural war becomes a hot war, what will happen if people on the right go nuts? Will anyone from areas populated by "the left" be able to protect the community? I doubt it.
So I'm making an argument that the American left should give up its anti gun rhetoric, and change it to gun regulation based on population density. People in high population density areas (such as the NYC Tristate region) may have to live with more onerous gun regulations than people in South Dakota. Risk of gun crime may need to be accepted as a price that must be paid to preserve the freedoms that the left has brought us over the years. One way of mitigating this risk may be the development of "regulated" (practiced/trained) militias under the guidance of the state. Many people demanding gun rights are only saying "Look at me. I'm important!" in a childish way. With training, I expect that more people will respect what a firearm can and can't do.
What do you think on this topic? Can we maintain peace by arming the public on both sides of a cultural war? (I like "Mexican Standoffs." But many people fear them.)
No comments:
Post a Comment