How deep should we dig the grave?


Guns and words. I live by one. People die by the other.

Guns defend and protect, hunt and kill, but not on their own.

“Anyone with a gun can go out and commit an act of terrorism, even without a political affiliation.”

Aaron McGruder, cartoonist

Words envision and maintain, create and incite, but not by themselves.

“[There are] no bad words. [There are] bad thoughts…bad intentions…and words.”

Click the gun barrel in Sarah's mouth to view her "blood libel" deflensivess.

George Carlin, from Class Clown, 1972

Guns don’t kill. Words don’t kill. Yet in the hands of those with bad thoughts and the worst of intentions, both can be powerful, sharp and deadly tools. We kill because our laws say we can, and because voices – some in a killer’s head – say we must.

It’s the absolute truth of guaranteed guns. As long as people own firearms, people will get shot; people will die.

But death too, has a voice. “Your brother’s blood calls out to me from the ground,” the Bible says as God confronts Cain after his fratricide (Gen. 4:10). The cry of Abel’s blood rises from the pasture, and from a Safeway parking lot in Arizona, ringing the bell for the funeral, the death of innocence. The mark of Cain here is burned in the palms of any legislators who take money from the gun lobby, and find weakness in being their brother’s keeper.

By advocating for guns, being able to carry them into schools, bars and public meetings, state legislatures around the country are saying that certain people deserve to die, and any schmuck with a gun can decide who that is. Regardless of Jared Loughner’s motivations, he would only have carried out his deadly mission in Tuscon, Saturday, if he felt that the people he allegedly murdered deserved to die. His sanity, then, isn’t judged on his ability to discern right from wrong. Like Scott Roeder, who was convicted last year of murdering abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, it is judged by whether or not we agree that a rational person can believe the people who were killed deserved to die.

The right to carry a gun has become a litmus test for  the conservativeness of  prospective jurists and campaigning politicians. The National Rifle Association, who claims gun ownership as “a fundamental, individual right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution,” fights to keep it that way. To hold otherwise, the NRA advocates, is to give in to the progressive claim that guns enable bad behavior. “If any city,” an Ohio NRA spokesman said recently, “wants to crack down on violence, city leaders there should focus on prosecuting criminals, not enacting new gun laws that only serve to restrict law-abiding citizens.”

So they want to prosecute criminals and arm the citizenry. That makes guns the only manufacturing industry promoted by the US Constitution. Well, maybe not the only one. I guess according to an NRA view, the Constitution supports the earth moving industry as well, because until we start asking how we can change the perception of the Second Amendment, the only question we’ll have to answer is, “How deep should we dig the grave?”

-PBG

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “How deep should we dig the grave?

  1. PG, here is a link from Michelle Malkin. I am sure that you might consider her a far right wing radical, but I consider her an advocate for the conservative voice. Anyway, she has consolidated some of the “rigorous” political debate from the left. IMHO, the overwhelming majority of negative, mean spirited political rehtoric comes from the left. BTW, when was the time of kindness and civility in political debate? Not in my understanding of American history.Thoughtfulness and kindness comes from the conservative side of the debate, more so than the left. After all, the Hayseed riots, Newark riots in 1967, the Stonewall riots, the Chicago Riots at the DNC, the Seattle riots of the WTO, I could go on. My point is that the Left has made rigorous debate into violence, more than the right in more cases than I care to remember. http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

    Like

  2. As usual PG, I disagree with your post. It was interesting that you noted Cain and Able. People have been killing other people long before guns were invented. People kill people for all kinds of reasons and with all kinds of weapons. Regarding the second amendment, firearms are not the only protected industry in the constitution. The press is a protected industry as well. More to the point, the litmus test, as you term it, for conservative candidates, is not gun control per se, but the validity of the words and intent of the Constitution along with individual rights and limited government intrusion.

    Like

    1. Actually, AT, I thought about the press. The press is protected only insofar as they can print pretty much anything without running afoul of the law. As far as I can recall, legislatures have never, ever passed laws saying the press can expand their rights to print/express etc. The firearms industry is constantly being given more and more license as to what can be owned, who can be armed and where those arms can be carried and sold. They fight to expand those rights, which means guns become more available which means they sell more. They fight to keep gun sale tracing secret and to keep the gun show loophole open. No, this is an industry that aims to arm every citizen, and frames it not just as a right, but as a duty.
      I wish more people read the paper, virtually or otherwise. We would have a better informed electorate. But they don’t. That’s too bad.

      Like

      1. PG, I don’t find anything wrong or illegal with the firearms industry and it’s advocates pushing for favorable legislation. The notion that “the firearms industry is constantly being given more and more license” is nonsense. It is one of the most heavily regulated industry both on a state and national level. In this country, guns are manufactured, distributed and used by many. Palin did not have anything to do with this nut job shooting up a crowd at the Safeway. The psyco Loughner bought the gun legally. The tragedy should not be used by the Progressive Movement to discredit the constitution, talk radio, Fox News or to move the progressive agenda forward at the exepnse of innocent victms or right leaning people or organizations. The left in this country should wait until the evidence is collected about this tragic incident before passing judgement. Incidently, the Sheriff of Pima County is responsible for part of this event. Not just for inciting the media, but it seems that Loughner had been on their radar, but they failed to act to prevent this madman from getting out of hand.

        Like

        1. I agree that fingers are being pointed where they shouldn’t be, given the evidence at hand. But that doesn’t mean we cannot take this opportunity to address the vitriol being used in our political discourse, take it down a couple of notches. The “rigorous” political debate I recall growing up never included threats that border on treasonous fervor, including calls for “Second Amendment remedies.” In fact, candidates who used talk like that – like George Wallace -were marginalized.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s