The Oregon shooting resurrects more heated debate on Gun Control/Regulation. And of course we hear more of the same quips such as: “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” Or “It’s a heart problem not a gun problem.”
Hard core pro-gun proponents not only will not budge on the issue, they become all the more adamant in their stand against any further consideration for stricter gun laws. They continue to insist that guns are not the problem and that gun regulation is not the answer. Meanwhile, the NRA continues to find ways to make it next to impossible to do and/or reveal scientific sociological studies that give evidence that good solid gun regulatory laws along with appropriate enforcement actually do reduce gun fatalities.
So what do guns mean to them? What do guns represent to the gun owner, especially to that particular kind of gun owner that resents and fights against any, ANY suggestion that guns should be regulated?
From what I can tell, it can only mean something like this: “When push comes to shove, my gun(s) represents my ability to take a “last stand” in absolute defiance against a government I disagree with and/or distrust to the core. Thus, I stand ready. That is, if and when I ever feel threatened by the government, I may have to resort to my guns to fight to the bitter end in defending my God-given right to determine my own destiny and make my own way in life. Therefore, I must not only resist the government’s encroachment on my right to bear arms but must also resist its desire to know whether or not I have any guns at all, or how many guns I have if I do, or why I have them, and/or what I use them for; because, to give the government that kind of information is to give them the upper hand. And I will NOT do that! This is why I so adamantly stand against any and all gun regulatory laws and defy any suggestion that we need more gun control or any control at all.”
This is a worldview statement. It is a philosophical mindset. It runs deeper than mere right wing versus left-wing politics. It is a way of looking at the world and one’s place in the world, especially one’s place with respect to one’s idea and definition of freedom, power, and authority, or of one’s ideas respecting the rule-of-law and the government. It is a mindset that says something like this: “In the end, when all is said and done, I am my own best authority and rule of law; and only I can guarantee my true freedom. My guns give me a fighting chance to do this, if that’s what it should come down to. So, no way am I going to allow the government to take away my guns or to regulate my use of and/or ownership of them!”
This is why any and all arguments from the pro gun-regulatory side fall on deaf ears. There is no rational argument that will be heard. There is no “making sense,” no common understanding to be had, no ability to come to terms in agreement. What we have here is a fundamental worldview and philosophical mindset difference between the two sides.
The pro-regulatory side trusts the government. They see no need to keep the government in the dark or to hold the government at bay about who owns guns, how they purchased them and what they plan to do with them.
On the other hand, the anti gun-regulatory side sees the government as the core problem and core problem maker. For them, less is more; the least amount of government is the best amount of government. Hence, a government that meddles with one’s firepower (gun ownership) is a government that is meddling with one’s core freedom—one’s fundamental right to defend one’s self against tyranny.
This, it seems to me, is why pro-gun lobbyists (such as the NRA) and anti gun-regulators will never agree to what (for the rest of us) may seem to be quite sensible and reasonable gun laws or gun-regulatory action or gun control, in this country.
No comments:
Post a Comment