Arms and The Man

Not surprisingly, someone has objected to the non-libertarian stand on the second amendment to which I alluded in the previous post. This is a slightly different subject, so I'm opening a new post.

I'm used to this. As an essentially conversative person living deep in Hunting Country whose opinions on gun control tend to surprise people, I get into this a lot. My position makes perfect sense to me, of course.

Anyway, today's writer correctly observes that the Constitution nowhere "grants Congress the power to forbid me from buying, owning, or using a firearm, a knife, a whip, a rock, or a stick for defense." Of course, the Constitution doesn't do a whole lot of things. It's a very short document. But leaving that aside, this writer is "open to debate about whether automatic rifles and bazookas are too extreme or whether there are some specific individuals that should not be able to bear arms," but wonders if I "think it wise to give government complete and utter control over who can defend themselves and how."

Here's my response:

To get a bit more fundamental, why does "the government" have the "right" to do anything? What is the purpose of government? (A related question: Why would people bring themselves together, organize, and voluntarily submit to the rule of law?) Why should the government have anything at all to do with law enforcement or with the safety and well-being of citizens? Who decides what is "extreme" about possessing any kind of instrument the sole purpose of which is to send a missile of destruction far away from the person holding the instrument? If not government (i.e., the collective will of the people), then who? So much of the law is drawing lines.

The questions form around where we draw the lines, and why. I don't know anyone personally who has ever successfully defended himself or herself with a gun except in time of war or in the line of duty as a police officer. A couple of people very near and dear to me, born and raised in other places, apparently do know such people, and quite naturally they and I are not of accord on second-amendment issues. Basically, they think I'm naive, which I probably am. I do know of children who have been killed by accidental discharge resulting from play with their parents' guns. And of course we all know about the havoc wreaked by crazy children who were able to obtain guns. So is the proper response that teachers should keep guns in their desks, just in case they need to mow somebody down? And then of course I have known quite a few belligerent, gun-totin' folks with quick tempers who tend to a high degree of self-righteous defensiveness. These facts color my opinions.

So .... Even more fundamentally, and this loops us back to our anonymous writer's question and to my previous post, I would pose this question: What should we(who?) defend, and how? But most importantly, why?

By now everyone knows that what concerns me most is the heart, for without pure love in our hearts, in the end, says the Lord, we are "nothing."

In the meantime, we have policy and laws to make or break. How, upon what principles, do we do this?

Admittedly, it's more fun to talk about hoarding Diet Coke.