More gun-related thoughts

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote up a post on the raging debate on guns and gun control. Part of my diatribe at the time concerned how both sides of the debate stake out extreme positions and neither side is willing to listen to the other. Over the intervening few weeks, this has not changed. If anything, both sides have grown more vocal on the issue. And, as I have pointed out previously multiple times on this blog on another controversial issue - racism - neither side is immune to being guilty of arrogance, ignorance or outright stupidity in their handling of the issue.

Last week, I responded via Twitter to a comment made by a New York Times journalist who commented that "responsible" gun owners support new gun control legislation. My response was something along the lines of "it seems that 'responsible' is a subjective term when it comes to your views on gun control". The journalist did not respond back but a few of his other followers did. While I tried to rationally clarify my point on "responsible" gun owners, they spent their time stating that I was an idiot, a gun-lover, a redneck, a hillbilly and worse. (I will simply state here that I am none of those things.) In other words, I got "trolled".

Granted, trying to engage in a serious debate on Twitter probably isn't the smartest move because of the inherent limitations of that medium but I found it curious that people who are arguing for gun control should be so full of vitriol and, in hindsight, I hope that they are not gun owners themselves because they were terribly angry at me for what I felt were very reasonable comments. To me, it seems similar to my issues with Democrats when it comes to their claims about diversity and minorities - they believe in it so long as those diverse minorities support them, otherwise they are race traitors (for lack of a better general term). But there is a perception that those who support gun control are the more peaceful people but this seems to be a farce based on those comments.

This is not to say that the opposite does not occur with those who support the right to own guns trolling and antagonizing those who oppose them but they are rightly called out for it when it occurs. However, it seems that the criticism for such actions is one-sided. Just because gun control advocates are perpetrated as being more peaceful and reasonable does not hold it to be true. Now it is time to hold gun control advocates to the same level of criticism as proponents when they act like idiots.

I am ever the eternal optimist...

Grateful Citizen

I was thinking yesterday about how grateful I am to be a citizen of the United States of America. But, being me, I wanted to determine for exactly what I was so grateful. As it turns out, I am grateful for things that may not seem to go together. But it is a crazy patchwork of things that has made this country not just survive, but thrive, in the manner that it has for more than 200 years. Granted, that is a short time in the relative history of many other nations but a sign of the dynamism and wonder that is this nation.

So, what are the things for which I am grateful (as a citizen)? There are three and all are enshrined in the US Bill of Rights (and upheld through the law):

• The right to bear arms (the right, not the obligation)
• The right to freedom of speech (and the right to suffer the consequences accordingly)
• The freedom of the press to monitor the actions of both the government and the people (admittedly, I am an NPR - National Public Radio - fan)

 Yet these are seemingly incongruous within the current political landscape. Or, to be more precise, certain political groups would support the right to bear arms but deny the right of NPR (or most other news organizations) as being politically biased and therefore useless - and vice versa. Yet it is the ability of these ideals to exist with each other that makes this nation stronger, in my opinion. My right to bear arms is to help moderate the power of the government and help to ensure that it remains answerable to its citizens rather than a tyranny under which the citizens must suffer. My right to speak my mind without fear of arbitrary punishment as a result - though I am (and should be) held accountable when my speech causes undue harm to others (such as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded building). And the right of the press to monitor and report upon the government, in particular, helps to ensure, much like the right of the citizenry to own guns, that it will remain responsive and responsible to the people which it is designed to serve.

The key part of all three of these things is that they all be practiced in moderation. And herein lies the point of contention with many who inexplicably (at least in my mind) oppose them in given situations. Just because you have the right to own a gun does not mean you have the right to use it on your fellow citizens. Just because you have the right to speak your mind means you should do so without thinking first. And the power of the media should be moderated to ensure that it is not a power unto itself but a moderating force upon those it should report.

It is a delicate balance and there have been, and continue to be, the occasional errors. But, for the most part, it has worked and I am glad and grateful that it does.

(As a side note, I should also mention that writing early in the morning makes it more difficult to recall certain words that I wanted to use but couldn't immediately recall. I reserve the right to edit this post later when I remember the proper words. EDIT - "arbitrary" was the word I was looking for.)