The Wrong Amendment

Due to the recent tragedy in an elementary school, where a psycho went on a murder spree, the conversation all over has been to implement some form of gun control. People have been either vigorously supporting or voraciously condemning the NRA, and screaming for the elimination of so-called "assault weapons". Everyone has become a constitutional scholar when it comes to interpreting the 2nd Amendment - telling us what the founding fathers did and did not mean when they wrote it.

Understand, as the 2nd Amendment stands, we have the (God-given) right to "bear arms". It doesn't say "muskets", or "rifles", or any specific type of "arms". Many of the founding fathers were men of science, so I'm pretty sure they believed in the advancement of all technologies that further scientific investigation would bring. So, ANY law that puts ANY restriction WHATSOVER on what constitutes "arms", is a direct infringement on that right, and therefore unconstitutional.

The argument to the above is often the 1st Amendment, where laws have been written that create boundaries around what constitutes speech and the freedoms that come with it. You can't slander someone (unless, of course, you are a politician - in or out of an election year) and you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. What constitutes "arms" in the 2nd Amendment therefore deserve the same type of boundaries. There is a major difference though: unlike the words that come out of our mouths, many of the types of weapons that are up for being abolished are ALREADY in the hands of criminals. Making them illegal only disarms law-abiding citizens. The criminals won't care - that is why they are criminals.

Let's look at this from a different perspective. Who do we really want to keep weapons from? The mentally ill. Think about it: every mass shooting that has taken place was perpetrated by someone who was mentally ill. You can't open fire on kindergartners and be in your right mind. So, mentally ill + gun = death of innocents. Maybe we are attacking this from the wrong angle. What designates someone as mentally ill? Someone with "wrong" ideas concerning reality (by reality I mean that which allows for the social framework to hold together). Where does someone get these wrong ideas? From the things they hear and the things they read.

What is needed is not the expropriation of the 2nd Amendment, but the elimination of the 1st.

Let's get rid of "free speech". Don't let people like me have a platform to share ideas that might disrupt the mainstream. Let the elite, those in our government determine what can be said, what can be printed, and what thoughts can be shared in film and games. After all, since they represent us, and we elected them, surely they would best know what would be appropriate. And once that has become entrenched into our culture, no more mental illness. No more mental illness, no more worry about "assault weapons".

There. Problem solved.

(The above was meant as sarcasm.)

© Emittravel 2013

Dear Sigmund

With the recent tragedy at an elementary school in Connecticut, the conversation has seemed to focus on gun control for the most part. Events such as these make us want to do SOMETHING - even if it has very little effect. Politicians trumpet stricter gun laws - banning so-called "assault weapons", to make it look as if they are doing SOMETHING of value. Understand, that is what politicians do: they legislate away problems. In Connecticut, however, they already have strict gun laws; a ban on "assault weapons" and elementary schools are already what are called "gun-free zones". Yet, this still happened. Are more gun laws really going to fix it? I think we have the focus on the wrong issue.

We sit and wonder, "what kind of mentally deranged individual would do such a heinous thing as this?" And that is the heart of it: people who do these things ARE mentally deranged. But what can we do about that?

We need, not just easier access to even better mental health provisions but, the PERMISSION to suggest it. When Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army Major opened fire in the Fort Hood military base in 2009, nobody thought to question his behavior prior to the incident. After all, he was a psychiatrist. Surely he of all people was mentally healthy.  Rumors floated around about his state of mind AFTER the incident. Really?

Terms like "dark", "loner", and "quiet" describe the last few school "terrorists". Such are ascribed AFTER the tragedies. People come forward AFTER the tragedies to make these statements. Why not before?

(Here is where I may upset my readers.)

The enemy, as Pogo once said, is us. The fault? Is ours. We are too afraid to say something BEFORE. Maybe it's "politically incorrect" to point out that someone may need care or observation. Maybe we are afraid of being sued. Maybe we have pushed our moral code so far down within us that we won't take the risk of being accused of being "judgmental". Who are we? The whacko religious-right? Absolutely not.

Do we need better healthcare laws that promote mental health services? Maybe. But what we need more is the loss of the stigma that the need for mental care has attached to it. Look at Alcoholics Anonymous. There is nothing shameful about admitting you are an alcoholic and need help. We have gotten over, for the most part, that stigma. What about in the areas of depression? There has to be more than prescription-medicine-commercials-for-depression to reach people. And not just for those needing the help, but for us - those having to live with the aftermath of ignoring it.

It's time for us to realize that our society is full of hurting people. Reach out to them. Help them. If you are in a church it is your duty to reach out to them. Don't wait for the government to handle this. We all know how beneficial another law can be . . .

Note: the title of this blog comes from an episode of the television show "M*A*S*H". In it, Dr. Sidney Freedman is coping with his own depression; writing a letter to Sigmund Freud.

© Emittravel 2012