We seem so willing to give up our rights in exchange for a little safety, by forcing technology companies like Apple to install backdoors in their encryption. But not for gun rights. Think about how many lives would be saved if we just tightened up a few loopholes in gun laws, like the loophole that lets anyone buy a weapon at a gun show without any background check, or registering the gun.
Don’t get me wrong. I think the second amendment gives us the right to own guns. I just don’t understand why other rights guaranteed by the constitution seem to be less important to us. The government bent over backwards to let the whack jobs at the wildlife sanctuary in Oregon parade around with their weapons and play tin soldier militia. But tap our phones and our response is a collective yawn.
As usual, it is always about money. Gun manufacturers (via the NRA) whip up the crazy base. And finally, Apple (and other technology companies) are objecting to the government crippling encryption, because it will hurt their brand.
Maybe 1984 already happened, and nobody noticed.
3 Comments
My understanding is that it’s within our technological capabilities to make guns that read and respond only to the owner’s fingerprint. No one but the registered owner can use the gun. I’m sure such technology, if it exists, may not be foolproof. Perhaps there are other, better safety improvements that can be made to guns. If so, let’s talk about them and get to work on implementing them. SURELY we can do something to make guns safer, if we can’t get rid of them altogether. I mean, we regulate the safety and access requirements for things like automobiles, tobacco, medications, and alcoholic beverages. Why is it such a big problem in this country (and nowhere else in the world) to implement rules regulating safety and access to a product that has a lousy track record and that’s not only dangerous but specifically built to be dangerous?
Knowing what we do about the communities that existed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries in America, and the 100 years or so of Colonialism before that… Why don’t we talk about the extent to which The Founders enabled sociopathic and psychopathic behavior?
Even (ESPECIALLY!) when the very existence of communities that were then on the frontier depended on people working together, including working together to oppose colonial powers, did the original 13 have any patience at all for the nonsense we allow nowadays? Does anybody really believe that nonsense?
The world was not Hollywood back then, and it is not Hollywood now. Psychopaths were not allowed to have guns… psychopaths very often did not live to adulthood if they behaved like some of the idiots loose in our country today and, if they did, they spent a lot of time in jail and never had the right to pretend they were productive members of the community.
And arm them with the equivalent of automatic weapons? Not just, “no,” but “HELL, no.”
It’s way past time we started getting serious about this conversation, and the definition(s) of responsible citizenship. Protecting the gun “rights” of criminals, the mentally ill or ANYONE who is a threat to the general health of the community (and this includes you, Ammon Bundy), responsible citizenship is NOT.
Redjon, I’m afraid that the psychopaths, the NRA and their ilk have a death hold on this country. The majority favors some restrictions but seem to be unable to get any traction in the Congress, the local legislatures and even the courts. I hear this over and over again, “There are so many guns out there that nothing can be done”. Horsehockey! Even if we have to do it one gun at at time, at least it doing something. I don’t know the exact definition of “terrorist organization”, but I suspect the NRA comes close to fitting the bill.