Life vs Livelihood
It is official. The Supreme court values the progression of unborn fetus into the world of the living over the life of people already living. If that is not the definition of insanity, I do not know what is.
Not to mention the insult blown to women’s rights and dignity, as if we have regressed to the age when and where women were subjugated and regarded solely as vehicles of childbirth with no rights to their own bodies. But let us put that premise aside for now and focus on the insanity of the argument for gun rights and how the current shift defies logic and common sense.
It defies logic in the face of numerous factual statistics showing a direct and causal relationship between the number of guns sold and the number of deaths by gun shot, hence refuting the non sensical cliché that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
Get Zarkesh Log’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
For sure guns don’t kill people, and for sure people kill people. What is missing in this insulting phrase is the fact that people with guns kill people, a reality horrifically magnified by the allowance of such weaponry as those that have enabled mass shootings, the likes of which we saw again recently at the Uvalde elementary school where nineteen kids and two adults were slain. How could such gun ownership been the intent of the founding fathers when they would have not even been able to fathom such weaponry. In light of such understandable oversight, does it not fall upon us to modify the constitution to match our current world rather than remain stuck in the past that no longer applies? Or are we to follow the founding fathers as if they were prophets? Even holy scriptures, the Bible and the Koran which billions of people believe to be ultimate, are challenged when not adaptive to our changing world, let alone the workings of ordinary humans, albeit visionary and smart. The same founding fathers owned slaves and considered it legal to trade human beings. But the society finally saw the inhumanity in the sin of the century and changed the law of the land, however shamefully too late. Same must be done with the second amendment.
The short of it is that second amendment served a purpose for the time it was enacted; as a safeguard against subjugation by another nation and as means to self-defense in a newly born nation just embarking on the road to fill in the many holes in the tapestry it has started to weave. Through its journey, this new sovereign went through many trials and tribulations, some of which representing the worst of a civilization, when guns and terror rather than rule of law governed the wild wild west. Of those who advocate gun rights I ask; is that the kind of civilization we want for our children? Are we willing to settle for a society governed by rule of force and terror, or by rule of law regardless of how fast one can draw its pistol?
Just because the constitution affords the right to bear arm does not render it right for this time and place. Neither does it justify the sale of AR-15 for self-defense. Legal does not always equate right. Laws must reflect the nuances of a society and the changing of the times, and hopefully, hopefully, integrate heightened fairness and sense of justice as we strive for a status quo where sensible laws apply to all regardless of race, gender, strength, power, or wealth. The latest rulings for sure are pointing to the opposite direction.
In 1770’s women did not have any rights; their faiths resting with the whims of men controlling their bodies if not their souls. There was no abortion right, but the right to own and bear arms was guaranteed. Two and half a century later we find ourselves in a similar quandary, a world in which a horrific story can unfold when an unwanted pregnancy, be it through rape or otherwise, is forced to fruition, devastating the life of a woman, a child growing up in a strife-ridden environment with potential disastrous consequences, then leave the child unprotected and a victim to a Uvalde-like massacre, betraying the woman all over again.
If this is not the definition of insanity, I do not know what is.
