As expected the all out assault on the second amendment has started over the tragedy in Binghamton, NY. Here is ABC linking gun sales to the tragedy in this article Gun Sales Up in Binghamton and U.S.. Apparently, what was supposed to be a “high-powered rifle” (see my last post) turned out to be two handguns and a knife, notwithstanding the attacks continue. In this article, the violence in Mexico and this tragedy are linked as part of a larger issue simply because of the means and not the causes of the problems. The violence in Mexico is a result of a war between law enforcement in Mexico and the well financed drug cartels that are terrorizing their people, cutting off people’s heads, and bringing narcotics into this country, not a result of gun laws in the United States and our rights should not be infringed upon because of this conflict in a foreign country. The Binghamton tragedy has to do with the sanity of this individual and is a law enforcement issue. It is an issue that really does need addressing, but we must keep in mind that the second amendment exists for a reason.

On the Huffington Post we have another article by Jackson Williams that refers to those who post comments in favor of our second amendment as “gun obsessives” and to those who are not as people who “know better.” To reduce an argument over a Constitutional amendment to “gun obsessives” vs “people who know better” is just plain name-calling and dangerous to American freedom. This article would do better by explaining how far the government should go in curtailing this freedom and if the right to self defense against others (criminals, invading armies, and oppressive governments included) should be sacrificed. I could go and call those that oppose this freedom the “naive-kumbaya crowd” and leave it at that, but that would be dishonest as well because some rational people believe that the benefit of this right is outweighed by the cost. It is better to discuss the topic and present one’s position without simplify discounting the opposing viewpoint. Similarly, this other article from OpEdNews (a self-described liberal news source) boils down support the second amendment with this explanation: “For years its [the National Rifle Association’s] hunter/rancher and rural constituents have recoiled at its paranoid secessionist/military weapon wing which drives so much NRA policy.” For the record, I am not a hunter nor a rancher nor a rural constituent nor a paranoid secessionist nor a war hawk nor a weapon enthusiast, but I do believe that the government should not be allowed to take away our constitutionally guaranteed rights without going through the democratic process outlined in said Constitution for the repeal of amendments (i.e. passing another amendment). And even in that case I would disagree with taking away that freedom. Unfortunately, it seems to be that the liberal position, almost unanimously expressed in these articles and others, takes aim at the Constitution and uses emotion-based politics to undermine it.

I could go on citing articles, blogs, opinions, etc. but in reality this is all detracting from the real events that have taken place in Binghamton, NY and I think that using an emotional event like this one and others in order to “go around” our second amendment by restricting our rights is a cold, opportunistic political move. Instead I invite all parties involved in this debate to present their arguments without exploiting tragic events. That said, my heart goes out to the victims of the Binghamton tragedy.

-AG