Disturbing

There are couple of items out there that deserve some attention and some "big picture" thinking. Fox News reported Sunday about a bill that has been introduced for the stated purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of known or suspected terrorist. Now, there are several problems with this proposal, some of which are outlined in the article. Among the potential pitfalls is the simple definition of terms: what is a terrorist? Just last week the Department of Homeland Security released the list of "extremist" organizations. Are they going to be on the list of those denied their rights under the Second Amendment? Will I be told I cannot purchase a legal firearm because I belong to a religious organization the government considers extreme, or because I do not believe in abortion? And don't think the liberals are immune; they got there own version of the extremist watch list. How long before Greenpeace is denied a zodiac?

I think my biggest arguments against this bill are these:

1. How will this really effect the "terrorist". Don't get me wrong: I do not want someone just released from Guantanamo (you do remember the people they keep there are terrorist, right) to walk into the local gun show and leave with an AK-47. However, there are already laws in place to prevent that: required background checks, waiting periods, etc. In addition to that, when was the last time a terrorist used a gun as their weapon of choice? Munich? Look at the list: September 11th, box cutters and airplanes; USS Cole, explosives on a boat; US Embassies in Africa, explosives; Oklahoma City, explosives built with fertilizer. It goes on and on, no guns used. Especially in the US. Why? Because citizens have guns to fight back with! Once again, this is real clear: If you make it illegal for law abiding citizens to acquire a gun, the only people who will have guns will be the criminals. Do you really think that a terrorist is going to purchase a gun from your local gun dealer where it can be registered and traced? If they wanted one it be acquired underground; new laws on this subject just will not work. Odds are they will do more harm than good.
2. Possibly one of the most disturbing aspects of this is that we are continuing down a path of punishing people for what they think and believe rather than for anything they have done. Think about this real carefully: they are trying to pass a law that will deny an individual their rights guaranteed under the Constitution because of who they are, what they think or believe, what they say, or what group they might belong to. But not for anything they have actually done. This concept began with the passing of the "hate crime" laws. I have heard Neal Boortz speak many times on how dangerous these laws are. It is one thing to punish someone for their crime, but now they are increasing the punishment because of what you may have been thinking.

Where do we draw the line? They (read as "government", "establishment", "Democrats", "Liberals". Though I do have to say that the gun control measure was introduced by a Republican. But he could no more be a conservative then Specter was) keep trying to impose more and more restrictions on freedom. I learned from another blog site about a law proposed by a California Democrat that would jail bloggers for "hostile speech"; defined as speech that is meant to " coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person." Can you get any more blatant in your attempts to suppress free speech that may not agree with your point of view? Does it get any more unconstitutional than this?

I am not one that believes that our rights are guaranteed unconditionally. They come with an equal measure of personal responsibility in order to keep them; and, yes, they can be taken away if abused. I have the right to free speech, i can say anything I please. But, I am not free from the consequences of what I say. If I threaten you, or slander you, there are legal consequences to my words. Ask the Dixie Chicks about consequences. They had every right to say what they wished about our country and President, but they were not immune to the consequences of their words. Eight years later, you still cannot find them on a country radio station in the US.

I believe that I have the right to own firearms. But, if I use that weapon in a reckless manner or in the commission of a crime, that right can be taken away from me. And while I do not believe that any American needs to own a fifty caliber machine gun or a rocket launcher (and no, you do not hunt with them, the dinosaurs are dead), I think we are treading on very dangerous ground when we start making distinctions.

The same goes for the free speech issues. When you start drawing lines as to what is appropriate to say or write you start down the road of eliminating freedom. Our laws are designed to protect freedoms, not restrict them. The new laws that are being introduced over the last decade are intended to limit freedom; often at the expense of one group for the benefit of another. The Fairness Doctrine is a glaring example of this. It was not intended to be fair, it was intended to get conservative viewpoints off the airwaves; to eliminate the voices of opposition. Why? Because liberal views cannot be defended in a public debate with free exchange of information and ideas. Therefore, it does not sell in a talk radio format, which was really the target of the law in the first place. How long before that law is extended past the traditional mediums? Think they wont try and shut down political blogs? Read the context of the law mentioned above.

We are treading on very thin ice. Our basic freedoms are under attack. Read through the Bill of Rights. It is all about individual rights; the right of the citizen separate from a group or the government. How do the liberals feel about individual rights. Their Queen (Hillary Clinton) stated it best: "...We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively...". Care to know where you might find similar statements: "The Central Committee... vigorously condemns the cult of the individual as being alien to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism." (N. S. Khrushchev: Report to the Central Committee, 20th Congress of the CPSU, February 1956; London; 1956; p. 80-81).

Where do you think we are heading?