Tuesday, September 06, 2005

Katrina versus the guns

Among the many reports from the hurricane-impacted zone, one issue was fleetingly mentioned and then buried for whatever reason under other, more "human-perspective" stories. It was reported that one of the factors that induced uncontrolled chaos in the after-math of the hurricane was the looting and rampant lawlessness. Compounding the situation was the reality of countless assault rifles, guns and other weapons that were in civilian possession. Law enforcement agencies complained that they could not manage any control of a crowd that had took to defending themselves at whatever costs with their own weapons, or took to the streets as self-desginated law-enforcers. Police authorities felt incredibly helpless in the wide-spread possibility of being fired at and being killed amid the chaos of all that destruction and disorder. For some reason, I feel this is a very important and highly political issue that has been deliberately been stifled by news media - possibly for good reasons that national attention be not diverted from the gravity of the human crisis for the benefit of some political agendas. Nonetheless, being a STAUNCH believer that gun-ownership is NOT A RIGHT but a PRIVILEDGE, I believe that such a dire situation of risk to human life would have not been augmented had it been the case that guns were NOT so easily and readily available in this society based on the FALSE NOTION that gun-ownership is a RIGHT. Regardless of what anybody's PERSONAL interpretation of the Constitution is, RIGHTS are NOT CREATED by a group of men writing anything on a piece of paper. NOR are RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY by any one person or group by legislating/writing anything on a piece of paper. The so-called "Right to bear arms" is ENTIRELY UNJUSTIFIED and has NO LOGICAL foundation in any objective principle or value of self-preservation. To make this point clear, let me illustrate with an example. Rising from the choice to live and therefore the need to survive, self-preservation becomes a value. One of the MANY means of self-preservation is access to resources and higher values that allow for self-preservation. Having access to resources, in some situations, implies mobility and self-movement, i.e. to RIGHT to physically (at least) gain access to those resources. So, in practical terms, one has the RIGHT to move to locations and places to find jobs inorder to fulfill ones values. Now, I have the right to move from this city to another city in search of a job. HOW DO I MOVE? Well, I can use one of the various means of transportation. For example, I can choose to fly, or to drive. Now, my CHOOSING TO DRIVE is PURELY A MEANS to exercise my RIGHT TO MOVE. Thus, DRIVING is NOT a RIGHT but a MEANS to exercising the RIGHT, which is self-mobility. There is the ubiquitous saying, "Driving is not a Right but a priviledge" -- and this is very TRUE. Similarly, the RIGHT to self-preservation and ownership of property (which arises from logically objective foundations) can be EXERCISED by certain MEANS, i.e. build gates around property, hire security, use technological devices, pay taxes to support law-enforcement agencies to protect your life and property, etc. These things are MEANS to help you EXERCISE your RIGHT to protect yourself and property. The OWNERSHIP of GUNS, therefore is merely ANOTHER MEANS of exercising your RIGHT... it CANNOT BE DESIGNATED A RIGHT IN AND OF ITSELF!! Whether you choose to have cameras installed around your property, or install high-tech gadgets, or hire a home-security company to setup alarms, or trust in the expediency of law-enforcement agencies in protecting you, or OWN GUNS... all of those things are your CHOSES MEANS TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS, your Right to Property and self-preservation. You DO NOT have the "Right" to install a camera... that is a CHOSEN LEGITIMATE MEANS of wanting to protect what truly is a Right. Just because a bunch of old men decided to write about it on a piece of paper as having that Right, does NOT make it so! Remember, those men also wrote that Rights are "God-given". So for an atheist in this country who does not believe there is God, will there be no Rights granted?? Is that how this country functions?! One can debate endlessly on whether gun-ownership is a LEGITIMATE means of exercising one's Right to self-preservation and protection of property. However, it must CLEARLY SIT IN YOUR HEAD that gun-ownership is NOT a Right. Anyone claiming that it is, is creating a very dangerous and risky situation for the protection of the VERY same values they purport to protect.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Research to Determine Best Practices in Deploying RFID
Research going on at the UW RFID Lab at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is underway to determine how to effectively deploy RFID technology in a number of applications that will save users time and money.
Y'know, everyone suffers from lagging energy once in a while, and some more than others!
If you could use more energy to get through your day, please have a look at my site about nutritional supplements... There's more to nutritional supplements than you may have thought!

9/06/2005 10:41:00 PM  
Blogger Robert said...

So true...so true. We seem to have similiar political opinions. My blog, however, is targeted at those who are less-politically involved and only need a brush of the surface of political ideology, thus why I tend to keep things on the simple side. I deleted one of my posts because it got too deeply politically involved. Anyway, that's enough of me rambling on. Keep up the good work on your blog!

9/09/2005 11:29:00 AM  
Blogger innommable said...

This is such a great, well written, clear argument against gun ownership!!! I think you should send it to the NRA.

9/10/2005 11:37:00 PM  
Blogger Rubicund Y. Logorrhea said...

I especially like the 1st comment about nutritional supplements. I'll try those after I drink, smoke, and write all night tonight.

12/21/2005 05:58:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home