The question of the day is: What is the difference
between a democracy and a republic?
One answer is that in a democracy if your side gets
50 percent plus one of the votes, whatever you wanted gets done, even if you
take rights away from the losing side. In a republic, you can never take any
rights, as listed in the governing documents, away from the law-abiding
citizens, but in all issues not based upon those rights, the majority prevails.
What brought this to mind was an
interview on the local Monday morning news. I believe I heard the woman being
interviewed about the shooting at Umpqua Community College say, “America must
do something.” The rest of the segment talked about guns. You may draw your own
conclusions about what the message contained in that report.
In a democracy, it is possible to have knee-jerk
reaction to a shooting and ban the “bad” gun. In our republic, it is not so
easy, as everyone is bound by the constraints of the Constitution and it is the
individual who must bear responsibility.
I hear and read about politicians who want to ban
certain guns, ammunition, or simply make it more difficult to own any firearms.
Now in this country everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but the second
amendment is fairly clear to me. I have a right to own a handgun or a rifle or a
shotgun or several of each. What I don’t have a right to do is to harm another person
except in defense of myself or others.
A few elected officials or candidates have talked
about dealing with the issue of mental health. A few have talked about the
dangers of gun-free zones. Most just talk about gun control; which from their statements
is simply the reduction or removal of the right of law-abiding citizens to buy
and own guns.
Why are we not having a serious discussion on the very real
issue of helping those who have a mental illness which may cause them to harm
themselves or others? Why does our society refuse to help that tiny part of our
population who cannot help themselves? A few more beds in hospitals that are
equipped to deal with mental illness might be the first step that allows
families and even judges to get these people help.
Why are we not talking about the risks of gun-free
zones? Schools, theaters, and other locations that by law or by choice are
designated gun-free zones have been the location of most of the mass shootings
over the past few decades. Why would we believe that mentally ill or even
worse, the evil individuals who desire to harm others are somehow stupid? The
evidence before us shows that most prefer to carry out their horrid deeds where
there is the least risk to themselves. As an example, courthouses are normally gun-free zones
and yet are the scene of few mass shootings. Is this fact due to the constant
presence of armed law enforcement officers?
It is time for America to do something. Insane and
evil people are committing hideous crimes and we do nothing to address the
problem except talk. Politicians are turning serious issues into political fodder to
further their own agenda.
How will our society deal with those suffering from
mental illnesses? The debate on this complex issue must be moved to the front
of the line. For the sake of those who suffer from mental illness and their
families, we cannot ignore this issue any longer.
Discussions in every community about the risks of
gun-free zones must happen. Who carries the liability for protecting people who
enter a gun-free zone? Is there a risk or what kind of risk is there for not
having a gun-free zone versus the clear risk of having such zones?
It is time for each American to remember that we
live in a republic and we must seek answers that don’t undermine the very
foundation of our nation. If we can erase the 2nd amendment with
legalize and regulation, what prevents the same from happening to the rest of the Bill of
Rights?
