Protection By Armament or Protection By Peace

Should we choose to cure the symptom or cure the sickness? Make no mistake, the desire for war is a sickness to which even the most immune to immoral thoughts may succumb. The sympton to which I am referring is the individual act of terror. There are two opposing voices in American politics when discussing terrorist activity on the homeland. One side blames the weapon and the other side blames the assailant. To put it in our political parlance, one side blames a lack of gun control and the other side blames the mental health of the individual holding the gun. With two opposing causes, we then must migrate through our imagination to two opposing effects of proposed legislation. More gun control imposes on the second amendment right of law-abiding American citizens, less gun control allows even the most mentally unstable individual to obtain a weapon of devastating destruction. We all know this debate. We've heard the impassioned counsel offered by our representatives. We've heard the cries from our indignant proletariat. We've grieved, felt the heart ache it is to lose someone we never knew, and for the few, felt the heart ache it is to lose someone loved deeply. And still, little to no effect on our daily lives. At this point, it is near impossible to see what decisions could be made to help our country through its devastating statistics of violence. It seems we don't care. We spend more time thinking of how to protect ourselves from our neighbor than how best to protect our neighbor from proper threats. A sense of community in this country is missing. Strong communities within our country split themselves along the lines of political opinion, dissolving any chance of compassion or compromise between one another. If it were high school, it could be called cliquish. As a nation, it deserves to be called divided. A nation so mentally divided on the issue of armament is at its weakest. If we have concern for our future, concession is required on every side. Common ground must be found and to find common ground, we must start by admitting the reasons Americans were given their right to bear arms in the first place. Empathy and a rudimentary knowledge of American history is key. From there, we must interpret these reasons and apply them to our modern times. Finally, we can determine the long term effects of more or less armament legislation on our society, only to make an educated opinion and a room of compromise between these two opposing sides. Beyond the veil of headlines and marketable jargon, But how do we ever find relief from the impassioned voices, from the indignant proletariat, the polarized opinions from the impasswe call the gun debate? And to put it in terms beyond the veil of headlines and marketable jargon, one side believes our power to prevent violence within our communities is limited without hardened restrictions on firearms. The other side believes not only is it every American citizen's right to own a firearm, but responsibility as well to act as judge, jury, and executioner in any instance of danger towards one's life or the life of those around him or her. Technology will progress, our privacy will continue to be obstructed, and our lives will To find common ground, we must start by admitting the reasons Americans were given their right to bear arms. Empathy and a rudimentary knowledge of American history is key. From there, we must interpret these reasons and apply them to our modern times. Finally, we can determine the long term effects of more or less armament legislation on our society, only to make an educated opinion and a room of compromise between these two opposing sides. Those who oppose any new forms of gun control often embody the spirit of independence and patriotism we associate with the founding fathers. Many gun owners would have you think their right to own a gun is a recognizance of their national identity. And if that's the case, let's not only recognize their identity, but also recognize why the right to own a gun came to epitomize the American way of life. ... Talk shortly about Britain's reign over the colonies. ... Talk shortly about America's want of expansion and fight against the Native Americans. Our fore fathers wrote "the right to bear arms" with and without our current nation in mind. The American Constitution is a living document, in the sense that it can be amended. But federal rights were granted without any possible knowledge of the technological advancements the early twentieth century would give us. There are three opinion-altering characteristics of the our modern society that were not incorporated when granting American citizens their right to bear arms: Population increase, ~2.1-2.5 Million (20% under slave rule) in 1770s to ~320 Million in 2010s, our Nuclear Age, and a completely new 2) Our fore fathers wrote "the right to bear arms" without three important characteristics of our current nation in mind. 1) Civility, 2) Massive Population ~2.1-2.5 Million (20% under slave rule) in 1770s to ~320 Million in 2010s, 3) The Nuclear Age. The stockpile of weapons that the NRA lobbies for, that the gun lobbyists lobby for can only provide a false sense of security for the average American. Before my lifetime, we created and amassed the second largest arsenal of nuclear weapons that exists on this planet. So large, it can effectively end human civilization. Today, in my lifetime, we sustain it, we modernize it, we spend more now on our nuclear arsenal than we did at the height of the Cold War. In the meantime, we've established ourselves as a global police of sorts, and have become the most powerful country in the world. Now, our fore fathers wrote in our "right to bear arms" for the instance of a government overthrow. But now, in our nuclear age, with such a heightening emphasis (and budget) for national defense, we must recognize that the overthrow of the United States government is an impossibility, even by its citizens, no matter the stockpile of weapons a regulated militia may amass. They preach about their right and the right of every American to bear arms as if just endured years at war fighting for independence. Coming from war on the eastonly to find a threat to the west impassioned similarly and fighting for its own independence and way of life. To With a simple search, you'll find a quote from Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe in 1813: "Every citizen should be a soldier, this was the case of the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free state." Let's empathize with Jefferson. A man who in life spoke about the abominations of slavery but held slaves due to trying economic times. A man who in death is a personification of the word democracy but who, along with other founding fathers, ensured as best he could that our constitution did not allow for the "mob rule" or the injustices that can be placed on the few due to the wants of the many in a real democracy. Let's imagine a man who found solace in the political philosophies of Aristotle and in the proverbs of Jesus Christ, but gladly pointed out the embellishments associated with each in his time. Point being, our founding fathers were thoughtful, conflicted men who rarely agreed even with their own words. To embody this is in err. We must only use empirical evidence of history, not the possible interpretations of dead men, when diciphering our constitutional rights. So imagine the conflict with Great Britain he endured for the latter half of his life. The only way to win a war against an infringing, oppressing ruler, the only way to win independence for the colonies, was to unite against a common enemy, inspire hope that the colonies could gain freedom from British reign, and give them the means to defend themselves once the British come knocking at their door. To the west were tribes. Native Americans whose land was in danger and who fought back. Defending one's home against a Native American tribe was considered commonplace in many parts of America, and as we know, the American government sought expansion. The founding fathers saw very real threats to their visions, and they faced it by way of law. Today, we face invisible threats. A threat that quite literally exists only in the mind. .. 3) A lot of the people that preach a right to bear arms, refuse to define the line between civilian and soldier. There are important parts to that line. 1) Months, if not years, of training with the weapons they use. 2) An understanding of combat procedures, 3) A conditioning to war-like environments. Those are qualities a soldier has, a soldier that carries a weapon of war to protect his or herself. A civilian does not have those qualities taught to them by the American government. We give the rights to citizens to arm themselves with any weapon they choose, but we place no responsibility on the civilian once they have the weapon. Now we understand as a nation, collectively, the importance of weapons training, the importance of combat training, the importance of conditioning to war-like environments. We understand it, we accept it, we promote it, as one nation, bipartisan, we instill it on each and every soldier in our armed forces. When we talk about whether or not a civilian should have weapon of war, we have to understand the difference between a civilian sheltered from war and a soldier conditioned to war. We have to understand that our civilization is not in war. That our men, women, and children, our modern day Americans, are not in a war. We do not live our day-to-day lives as a soldier would live hers or his. You should question hard before supporting any American politician that thinks an overthrow of the American government is an effective congressional tool in an informed democracy. If anyone in American politics thinks that an overthrow of the American government by force is a real possibility, they should be removed from office, and we as intelligent Americans should be the ones to call for it. All this thought does is provide a false sense of security to American citizens. The American citizens are not safer with assault rifles. To end, I live in a world of cold hard facts. And the most important fact to accept is, a gun of any caliber or capacity will not protect you from a tyrannical American government, (only we as a united people can protect ourselves from a tyrannical government) only your mind will. Only by understanding that civility, unity, and intelligence are how we stop radicalism and violence. The argument of an oppressive government belongs in debates of privacy. But not in debates of gun ownership. Because, again, your gun does not protect you from an oppressive government any longer. We should respect our government, that we have elected by a democratic/republic electoral process, and respect each other as a community that seeks unity and respect from each other, enough to pass gun legislation that can prevent radical minds and violent individuals from getting firearms. We should all save face to the fact that our false sense of security is not worth more than the lives of innocent Americans. Common sense isn't supporting 240 year old laws without incorporating any modern understanding of them. Common sense is holding a value in our collective intelligence, allowing us to fully understand our environment and incorporate any necessary modifications to ensure the law of the land is the right law for the current landscape. Fore fathers. Then is not now. Are we citizens or are we soldiers. Citizen vs Soldier. Bridging the gap. "Every citizen should be a soldier, this was the case of the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free state." -Thomas Jefferson. "Good men pay for not being in politics by being governed by men not better than themselves." We then admitting to the long term effects of more or less armament legislation. And the only way for this to happen (and you may call me crazy for saying this) is for more people to speak up. But how do we find liberation from heated debate and The debate is itself an effect of the desire for war. A byproduct of the act of terror, brought upon by intense emotion. there is no compromise because there is not want of compromise, only want of war. The age of information fuels our need to fight. So how do we find our way out of this mess of a debate? We need to understand and content to the long term effects of more or less armament legislation. Armament protects the individual in a specific situation, but does little, if any, to promote peace over long periods of time. Here should be more words about armament and thoughts from (Einstein, among others) smarter people than myself about it. Gun control is not about opinions. We oppress an individual or individuals, but we may still progress towards true freedom and we may still one day embody the true sense of community. Even still, if we allow anyone who wants an abortion or any older individual that wants to die follow through with the procedure, we will not see every child aborted nor will we see every person past a certain age put to death. Gun control is not about opinions. If we arm every person of this country, bridge the gap between citizen and soldier, then influence war between those individuals, that is an effort towards mass extinction. Gun control in America is not about opinions, it is about the survival of the species. Gun Control From a man who owns an AR-15. The Causes and Effects of the Paris Attack If we can agree that these attacks that these attacks on Paris were calculated, wouldn't we then agree that the response of America and other super powers was also a part of that calculation? At a point in time when Syrian refugees are looking for a place to call home, the radicals know that after these attacks, our sense of right and wrong, our aptitude for empathy, our willingness to commit injustice will be sharply skewed as opposed to what it is in a time of peace. We have in a way become radicalized ourselves. Religious extremism, in the case of this terrorism, seems to be used the way it has been throughout history, as a way to gain societal control and interest of those that are looking for answers to their suffering. These extremists want us to turn away those refugees. As any refugee will have nowhere to go after our radicalization but to that extremist idea which will accept them, the same one they initially ran from. An attack ben solely on damage would have allowed this Trojan horse everyone speaks of to make it here into our society. If the rumors are true (terrorists are using the title of ""refugee"" to enter this country), the more damaging attack would've been to wait and attack with strength in numbers if they all shared the same ideologies. But the intent is not immediate death. The intention is to increase followers that are already close by. Western civilization has many times had to co-exist or "assimilate" with those it considered uncivilized and who appeared to have no interest in "assimilating" with a society that looks at them as such. But, everyone needs a home. Everyone needs acceptance. And those we turn away will find it in the terror we are fraught with. They do not bring with them these ideologies. But, my prediction is those ideologies will manifest as a result of the injustices we commit in response to these attacks. Part of a larger work about violence...