all the news that print will fit.
|
|
| notes from underground - societal whispers all the news that print will fit. |
|
|
Sunday, July 04, 2004 np: van morrison - moondance so, a first for me. i met the presidential candidate of a national party. michael badnarik (blog and official campaign site) is the libertarian party's nominee for president. he's somewhat of a surprise nominee, having won the nomination out from under the presumed victor, aaron russo. having a presidential candidate (especially of a 'major' party) show up at a small town fourth of july parade/festival is fairly impressive, so i have to hand it to the north carolina/cabarrus county libertarians for getting the whole thing in motion. for the most part i found badnarik to be very engaging, friendly and firm in his ideas and convictions. i didn't get a chance to discuss his ideas in depth much aside from one issue. apparently this is where i made my mistake. reading over his mission statement on gun control, badnarik did a good bit of quoting of himself, using almost word for word a lot of the statements listed in that link to his gun control platform. having heard him state in an earlier conversation that "20,000 gun laws" would be out the window when he's elected, i decided to ask him what exactly his problems were with the gun laws as they existed. as a person who guns make incredibly nervous, i have a lot of issues surrounding gun ownership. as a teacher, i have even more issues. his reply was spirited to say the least. his basic position boils down to the second amendment and his 'inalienable' right to own and carry a gun at any time he chooses. "do you believe in a right to life," he asked me. indicating my agreement, he added, "and do you believe in a right to protect that life?" i nodded my assent to this also. this of course lead to the inevitable 'handguns-as-protection' line of thought and its tie to the second amendment. how else will homeowners protect themselves? my problem is that this line of thought seems circular in nature. do we look at solving the cause of crime or do we look at changing our response? people come at us with handguns, so we fire back and it becomes a cycle of violence. what if someone breaks into your house unarmed? a handgun is the proper response? defending your property is one thing; potentially killing an unarmed person, lawbreaker though they may be, is quite another. as i stated earlier, crime itself isn't even the bottom of the issue for badnarik. his second amendment argument forgoes the consideration of others and claims, as part of his right, to be able to walk down the street with an assault rifle over his shoulder if he so chooses. when i came back into the country for the first time after 9/11 and walked into an airport with national guardsmen carrying rifles, i was far too unnerved to even know how to respond. if supposedly professional people carrying rifles makes me that nervous, i want to walk down the street beside people carrying guns? one person there said, 'well, i'm far more scared of cars than i am guns.' listen. i've been hit by a car while walking. guns still frighten me far more than cars ever will. here is the main reason i find gun ownership rights, to an extent, unnecessary in the united states today: there is no reason that handguns are necessary, period. they serve no useful purpose aside from 'home defense' and are a continuation of the cycle of violence. we aren't fending off foreign invaders of any sort. most people do not rely on hunting as a major food source. guns provide easy, quick access for people who are either looking to commit a crime or are prompted to respond violently. when people have too much time to consider what they are about to do, it would seem they would tend to back down. looking at north carolina murder statistics for 2002, we see that roughly 68.5% of murders were committed by handguns, rifles, shotguns or some other, undetermined firearm. guns are quick, efficient ways to kill someone. knives, cars, baseball bats, bare fists..are not. and cause precious delay in gut, emotional reaction. by removing handguns (the largest offender by far when it comes to murder weapons), we are removing an impetus. as a man said to badnarik, 'how do you respond when people say, "well, what about my right to have a nuclear weapon?"' badnarik said, 'well, that's clear and present danger.' well, what's a handgun? no useful purpose aside from the ill defined 'defense' potential and all kinds of present and potential danger to people within and without the home. badnarik had replied, when shoring up his second amendment defense, that just because someone chooses the break the law, his rights shouldn't be infringed. just because one person uses a gun improperly doesn't mean his right should be taken away. but frankly i don't think this argument holds water when it comes to handguns. when people consistantly infringe on others rights with a particular item, it is time to reconsider that item's place in our society. we are evolving. we are a society that has come so far in 200+ years. the constitution that michael badnarik so heartily defends is as much an evolving product as we are as a nation. it is a living document. we've given all citizens the right to vote, abolished slavery and further defined what our very core beliefs entail. none of these things were specifically written out in the constitution; some of them were written in the complete opposite way that we have them now. the document is a product of its time and as such has to be re-evaluated as we move forward. our founding fathers were not perfect and neither is the constitution. but they realized that and were farsighted enough to build the means of change into the system itself. clinging to notions of a society where all individuals feel compelled to carry weapons is not the way forward. and it never will be. posted by J. Neas | 7/04/2004 02:01:00 AM
Comments:
Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
