May 11, 2012
A pair of related stories today, making up one Imponderable.
The first story concerns the Republican National Convention. I’m putting politics aside so please, look at this from the perspective of it as a gathering of high-ranking government officials including one who may be President next year.
Of course security is high. There are threats from all angles here so logically there is a ban on weapons. Is it a stretch to call sticks, rocks, and bottles weapons? Not at all, there is more than ample legal justification. But what can’t be banned? Guns. Actual weapons. If you are a licensed gun owner you can walk right in with your sidearm. Does this make sense? Does the license somehow imply that the gun owner will not be likely to go over the edge due to a hot button political topic? I’d like to see some studies on that. Gun ownership does not require a psychological exam. This is a case were a group has some special status under the law due to nothing special about them. I am not coming out pro or anti guns, but I am against someone getting special status under the law for nothing. And in this case it is really the gun that has the special status. A law says that the rights of gun owners may not be restricted. Is it a right to carry a gun into an anti-weapon zone? What is the legitimate use of that weapon there? On the other hand if a man is thirsty and he wants to carry a Snapple into the zone it will be taken away from him. Does that make sense?
Then we have the case of the Vatican Cardinal. Has he ever shot anyone? Does the article even imply he has? He has given up hunting and simply enjoys repairing guns. And don’t try to smear him as a hunter, he also went to shooting ranges, places where no one gets hurt and you can exercise your skill at firing guns. That’s called marksmanship and in the Olympics you get a medal for that.
What this all comes down to is that it is the gun, not the person, is the focus of the issue. Assuming he is unlicensed in Florida, that Vatican Cardinal could not carry a gun into the area around the National convention while some yahoo from Pensacola who filled out the right forms could stroll right in. We are so focused on making everyone equal that we are making everyone “special,” which therefore makes them unequal by definition. I can’t get near a Presidential candidate with a stick but if I have a licensed gun I can stride right over.
Why are we so obsessed with protecting the rights of guns and not the rights of people?
The question is Imponderable.
And I am not interested in any civil rights or Consitutional arguments. Let’s use common sense here.
Mr. Blog's Tepid Ride 
Your Comments