i guess i just don't understand.
how is it acceptable to withdraw my right to trial by jury, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, but it is simply unacceptable to tighten and enforce gun control laws? all of these "rights" are outlined in the bill of rights, yet in "unstable times," the only certain thing is uncertainty.
i should know better than to get in this discussion with my boyfriend. he's so passionately centered on keeping his firearms that he has lost sight of any other "rights" that have been unlawfully withdrawn. i put that seemingly concrete term in quotations because i disagree with the context in which this nation uses said term.
according to dictionary.reference.com, a right is defined as:
1) a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral;
2) that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.
"due to anyone." without exclusion. period. right? wrong. if it's a right that is due to anyone, then everyone should be able to speak freely, publish their work without threat of censorship, and own a firearm. currently in the united states, a convicted felon cannot own a firearm. clearly, the "right" to own a firearm has been violated; therefore, it cannot be a right if it can be revoked. it is a privilege.
according to many, the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press may be stifled at any time if it is in the "nation's security interests." the right to a trial by jury may be waived if the suspect "may" be involved in terrorist activities. however, a psychologically unstable individual has every god damn right to purchase a firearm. i guess that makes sense.
after all, how many deaths are caused every year by the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech? it must number in the hundreds of thousands, because these rights are clearly taking a backseat to ANY form of gun control... but not that people die from wounds from firearms every day. that's just nonsense.
am i saying that no one should be allowed to own a firearm? absolutely not. what i AM saying is that individuals should have to prove their competency in the safe handling, usage, and maintenance of said firearm. whether this be achieved through a class, through an online tutorial, or through the united states military, frankly i don't care, but i can't understand why so many people shoot themselves with an unloaded gun. gun safety is paramount.
that being said, simply because you have proven that you can safely own and handle a firearm (which includes target shooting; i want you to be able to hit what you're aiming at, dumbass) should not guarantee you ownership rights. every individual who applies for a concealed carry permit should have to take a psych eval. but wait, you say. this is discrimination! yes, it is. so is barring a convicted felon from owning a gun.
a marijuana dealer was apprehended and charged in court. after serving his prison time, he was released. deciding to turn over a new leaf, he moved to a new neighborhood and started a new life. (nevermind all of the workplace discrimination he faced; that's another entry.) shortly after getting settled in, he began receiving threatening phone calls and messages from individuals he recognized as some of his ex-clients. unable to purchase a firearm, he reported his situation to the police, who dismissed his claims as simple vandalism. the man was found dead two weeks later in his home.
hmmm... i deal pot once, get caught, and can't protect myself from a legitimate threat? i don't care who you are or what you believe about marijuana, but that's fucked. regardless of the legitimacy of this anecdote, the point remains: is it a right if it can be revoked? no, it is not. owning a firearm is a privilege, as driving is a privilege. fuck up, and you're done.
i also find it humorous that individuals who have had a history of dui's--individuals who can't hold a driver's licence--are allowed to purchase a firearm. if you have such a serious alcohol problem that you can't drive your own damned car, you shouldn't be allowed to own a deadly weapon. you're not stable enough.
current policies on gun control are ineffective and pointless. the most frequently-used firearms are the ones that are the least regulated! almost 90% of all gun-related homicides, holdups, and shootouts use handguns that joe sixpack could walk in and buy within 30 minutes. however, much of the current legislation concerning guns focuses on high-powered rifles, semi-automatic rifles/shotguns, and other powerful weapons. am i saying that these firearms should be ignored? no. am i saying that easy-to-purchase firearms should be more heavily regulated? fuck yes, i am. i know that many gun store owners agree with me on this point; i have been dragged into many a gun store and many store owners in this area know me by sight.
this rant was mostly in response to a conversation i had earlier today. a good portion of it was written out of frustration, but that does not detract from the legitimacy of my points.
what i am really saying, i suppose, is that your privilege to own a gun should be on the same playing field as my privilege of free speech. after all, the latter has been taken away for the better part of a decade. i guess it can't be a right, then, after all.
silly me.