It's a New Year and with it comes new hopes and unfortunately new fears of what an unstable future might hold for all of us. A troubled and young man facing his own demons approached a demonstration of our version of democracy and callously and with great malice aforethought, took the lives of six innocent bystanders and wounded almost two dozen more. They were there to meet with their elected spoke person who represents them in the Halls of Congress. His actions pointed out some of the problems this Nation faces as we move forward. Can we permit our elected officials to appear in forums that allow open and unregulated participation by the people? Can we continue to permit the unfettered distribution of firearms with legalized modifications that permit these firearms to become weapons of mass destruction? Can we continue to permit all citizens of this Nation to use their rights under the first amendment (freedom of speech) to incite and urge violence upon other citizens?
As a declared liberal let me voice my view on the matter, fully understanding that my conservative colleagues have opposing views with equal merit. OK, let's go. Can we permit open forum meetings with our elected officials? Actually that goes straight of what caused our forefathers to rise up against their ancestral rulers. Less we forget. Our Revolutionary War was based not on the high ideals of democracy but rather as an opposition to economic oppression – "Taxation Without Representation," "The Boston Tea Party", "Forced Quartering of Soldiers", "Involuntary Servitude". – Remember? Even after the last shot was fired, and the debates began, we still had to decide what type of government we wanted and among the choices were a new royal family, a type of dictatorship, a form of anarchy and of course the growing mushroom that would EVENTUALLY grow into this thing called democracy. Through it all, the founding fathers never lost sight of the need for some sort of representative governmental forum, be it a Parliament, a Congress or just empowered group of the rich elite. With any type of representative governing body, the need to receive input from the governed is a necessity. How do we, in today's cyberworld of technology, exercise our right of input to our elected representatives? The answer, of course, is not a single method but one or all methods open to us as citizens, NONE of which is more important or less viable than the other. We can email our representatives, post letters to them, run ads for or against their positions, "de-elect": them in the next campaign, and finally we can address them face to face either by personal appointment or at public forums where our representative appears. Deny personal access to this individual and you are admitting that a faceless entity that might or might not be a "committee" or cyber-intelligent machine is sufficient for your needs in having someone or "something" representing your wishes at the centers of government. So I am sorry to say that there MUST be some way for me to address my issues to my representative in forums that also permit me to hear my fellow voters expressing their vices as well. At $18,000 a year, a US soldier excepts the fact that he or she has voluntarily signed onto a job that can make them assigned targets of an adversary on the field of battle. They do this with great honor and commitment and provide an indispensible tool for maintaining the freedoms of this country. Our Federal level Representatives receive $176,000 a year for their voluntary service. They unfortunately must accept the inherent dangers of their service including reasonable unfettered public access to these individuals. OK, let's move on.
Firearms in a nation that sees them as steel alloy sub-dieties that require unquestioned support and worship. "It is my right under the Second Amendment" is only partially true though legally supported as of last year. Most advocates of the Second Amendment do not consider themselves to be members of any type of "militia" yet the Second Amendment applies to the rather obscure terms "militia" and not specifically to some bubba who thinks it is really neato to strap on a pistol and walk the streets of Laredo. Actually I am not concerned about Bubba. He or she is generally a poor marks person with little or no actual experience or training with firearms and carries "iron" to make them seem cool or whatever. I am more concerned with the individual who buys weapons and then virulently opposes any efforts actually register or control the use of the weapons on the grounds that they "fear our government." This type of person also argues their right to cache as much ammunition as would be needed to overthrow a small nation and their inalienable right to modify their personal weapons so that they may fore an unbelievable amount of ordnance such as the 30 round magazines that can be used in side arms. Now just ask one of these individuals why they would need a thirty round magazine and you get two types of answers, both as silly as the other. Answer number one is "for personal protection". Sigh…If someone needs thirty bullets to protect then a pistol is not the weapon of choice. They need a gatling gun. Answer number two is even more obtuse…"I use it for target practice." Once again I need to remind them that if they need thirty bullets to hit the target, they have chosen the wrong weapon. I would also remind them that the additional weight of thirty rounds of ammunition will totally any ability to apply their expertise to a smaller capacity sidearm. Sorry guys and gals, you know and I know that you want thirty round magazines to impress your friends and to make you even more cool than you now think you are. So keep worrying about a mean old government using registration files to confiscate your weapons when "they" take over, whoever they might be. However be ready convince me that your political paranoia , which is not based on any US historical event, is not at least as dangerous as any other individual who harbors unfounded fears of some sort of dangerous plot by unknown entities to take something from you. If you can't, then you, according to the law, should not be able to buy or possess weapons. Hmmm????
Finally, let me – MY OPINION ONLY – address the issue of whether words can be dangerous. Witnesses on my behalf include, the pre-Constantine Ceasars who spoke so eloquently about the dangers of Christianity, the whole Inquisition crowd who first coined the phrase "Blood Libel" to describe why they had to torture and murder Jews and Moslems throughout the Dark, Vladimir Lenin who saw the need to urge his followers to kill thousands of Czarist to purify the goals of his new revolution, Adolph Hitler who convinced his countrymen that the wholesale butchery of six million Jews, homosexuals, gypsies , Slavs, and other "impure" people was absolutely warranted since, "they had been asking for it for centuries anyhow" and if I can persuade them to join me, the boys and girls from the Khmer Rouge who starved and murdered half of their country for being too smart. The question posed to them will be simple. "Do they think words can make people hurt other people?" REALLY!! Do I actually have to ask them? Does anyone actually need convincing that painting gun targets over a congressional district map could cause an unstable or highly "paranoic" individual to respond with violence? Could phrases advocating death, injury, or violence of any sort to be directed to a political opponent not arouse active support from a follower who only believes their actions are nothing more than their way to show support for a political viewpoint. Under the First Amendment we already know the courts have noted that yelling fire in a crowded theatre is an illegal abuse granted by the right of freedom of speech for the simple reason that it could cause serious injury. Can we not impose the same guidelines on public figures who choose to advocate violence against others – be they Muslim, Hispanics, Jew, Christian, or simply the other political party. If we can't impose the law could we at least call upon them to use common sense and back that up with financial support or lack of support for media coverage. Better yet, if we can bleep profanity on the media, why can we not bleep out such words when they are used on the media. That many "bleeps" would make Rush Limbaugh's show even more annoying than it is now.
My opinions only.
