Let’s take a total detour from film for a moment. I know that’s what you come here for (kidding: I know no one actually comes here) but it’s my blog and I can do whatever the flaming hell I want.
I posted this on my Facebook a little bit ago, but then figured I’d like to have it in a more permanent, “legit” place. It’s in reference to Obama’s talk last night in the Presidential debate, specifically gun control.
Obama: “We are a country that believes in the Second Amendment…but weapons that were designed for soldiers do not belong on our streets.” (In regard to assault rifles).
Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
When the Amendment was written, the most common weapon at the time was the musket. Who does Obama think the musket was designed for, if not soldiers? This Amendment is there for a very specific purpose.
I know many of my friends hold contrary views to mine in regards to gun control, and I grant them their opinions. However, I feel the need to stress that I hold the Second Amendment to be one of the most important to the future security of this country – the FUTURE security of this country. Hear that word, and keep it in mind.
Today, citizens do not need assault rifles. They do not NEED them. But, if we take away their right to have them, they will never get that right back. Never. And in some distant future, fifty, a hundred, two hundred years from now, when the government tries to become fully tyrannical, they will NEED those weapons. And if we take away their right to have them now, they will not have them then.
The Second Amendment is not a guarantee of the prevention of tyranny. It is not a final solution. It is an outstretched hand offering some small measure of aid to our future selves, or our descendants, when they come under the dark cloud of oppression by their own government. That government will still have tanks its citizens will not have. It will have bombs and chemical weapons that its citizens will not have. But we can ensure that it does not have arms that its citizens will not have.
The price we pay for this future security is a few deaths here and there, some criminal, some accidental, some pre-meditated. The criminals will always get their hands on these weapons, regardless of the laws we pass. The accidents can be prevented with more gun education. The perpetrators of the pre-meditated crimes will substitute a knife, a rock or their own bare hands if we take away their rifles.
These deaths are terrible. I myself had a close childhood friend who was killed in a drive-by shooting in my neighborhood. One of my best friends took his own life two years ago with a gun. I am not, and no one ever should, downplay the impact these deaths have on people’s lives. But neither should we strip our future citizens of the support they will need when their government turns on them, as it inevitably will.
People point out that countries like England have now existed for centuries with a mostly democratic government and no weaponry allowed to their citizens, not even a knife, with no governmental attacks on its people. This is true. But for how long can this last? What country has lasted forever without its leaders turning to tyrants eventually?
This is a complicated issue, a far-reaching one, and an important one. And I wish that people were talking about THIS and not “binders full of women”.