‘Letter to the editor: Enough debate over gun control’ – I Debate

I had quite a lot of enjoyable with the final letter, so right here is one other from the Portland Press Herald. This time, we study the annoyed prose of Steven Westra.

Allow us to start. Steven opens,

Among the many guiding rules of the U.S. Navy is “no excuses.”

True. Amongst considered one of their most profitable recruiting campaigns ever, narrated by the invigorating voice expertise of Keith David, was ‘Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of All Who Threaten It.’

Invoking a professionally violent group for considered one of their pithy quotes, one associated to accountability because the DoD fails one other large audit, is an attention-grabbing opening to a letter decrying violence. However go on, don’t let that discourage you.

I additionally perceive the grounding precept. I’m a Marine. ‘No excuses’, so put within the work. If it fails, the failure won’t be by means of your lack of efforts. I perceive what the invocation is attempting to push for, the issue is actuality.

We’re all exhausted by the justifications of our elected leaders]

On many issues that is true, however typically divided by get together strains. We’re informed what to be upset about with out context by both purple staff or blue staff. I can not put partisan frustrations and real frustrations in the identical pile of dissatisfaction, there may be an excessive amount of variance.

[and the excuses of the Republican Party for not ending gun violence. Enough debate already about the Second Amendment, mental illness, high-capacity magazines, assault rifles, the human heart …

End.

Violence.

Recall above the comment on “If it fails…” to the Navy’s “No excuses” proverb, can we apply it here? If it failed due to lack of efforts, we can. However cannot blame politicians for not ‘ending gun violence’ like it is daylight savings time or prohibition.

We can absolutely commiserate together about the inefficiency of the government, but you cannot blame them for not doing the truly and utterly impossible. Ending violence, something present throughout all of nature and history, something nearly as universal between competitive living beings as gravity is to a planetoid, is not possible. Putting the cute ‘gun’ qualifier in front of it merely brackets a portion of the violence, it makes it no less impossible a task.

Side note: I do blame them for not getting rid of daylight savings, it’s silly and needs to be put to bed so it stops messing up our bedtimes.

It is the job of our elected leaders to protect human life as well as our constitutional rights.]

Sure, however throughout the limitations of legislation and actuality. Not what legal guidelines can or must be made however the real looking bodily limitations a legislation permits to be imposed. Congress can unanimously outlaw gravity tomorrow, it could be (and has been) as efficient as outlawing violence.

Actuality Test: Violence is outlawed. Hell, that’s in a part of how ‘outlaw’ as a descriptor got here to be. Terroristic degree mass violence is essentially the most heinous breach of the violent prohibitions. Legislation makers can’t ‘cease’ something, they don’t seem to be participating in any bodily preventative. They don’t have any such absolute and binding bodily authority on the world. A lawmaker can print phrases into the federal and state authorized codes and use their imperfect enforcers inside legislation enforcement to punish a few of these individuals who don’t comply with the phrases. They may even, throughout all this, punish wrongly, punish unjustly, punish incorrectly, kill folks, disfigure folks, and fail.

They may fail time… and time… and time once more to cease the violence that’s towards the legislation. As a result of it can’t be stopped by some phrases on a web page, regardless of what number of phrases or in what order they seem. An object put into movement will keep in movement except acted upon by an equal or larger exterior drive. That fundamental legislation of physics may be utilized to human motivations and functionality fairly nicely too. A legislation, phrases written upon a web page, applies no bodily restraint to anybody. It applies strain socially on these keen to consent to adherence to it and it permits for a bodily response by brokers of the state at a sure degree of violation.

Apart: It’s attention-grabbing what turns into, politically talking, a ‘constitutionally protected proper’ and what doesn’t alongside political strains. The issues we more and more wish to declare ‘human rights’ as an alternative of human obligations is frankly tragic. Social welfare as a encompassing idea, from infrastructure to authorized programs to useful resource help packages, is a human accountability. It isn’t a proper.

[For the precious lives of our children and grandchildren, they must say “no” to their colleagues, who wear AR-15 lapel pins, and do their job. Enough excuses already.

Steven WestraChebeague Island

Sir. Steven. These aren’t excuses, not all of them anyway. These are real rules of the real world and sometimes real laws that you happen to disagree with. So you are debating in order to argue that the debate is over?

Let’s change the demand, Steven. You and I, together.

“Enough impossible promises from politicians for votes.”

Anyone who says they are going to ‘solve’ and unsolvable buzzword, fired.

Unelectable.

Done.

Yeeted from serious discourse.

I’m sick of hearing platitude laden plans about the ‘gun violence’ epidemic that boil down to,

“If you elect/re-elect me, I’ll try… I’ll try a thing, even more than one thing. I’ll try things that have certainly never been tried before or are demonstrably impossible. Just don’t look too hard at that last claim, please? Because you know I’m trying/going to try. I said so.” – Politician #129

I’ve said it before. I will say it again. If you truly believe that possession of firearms, just certain types or all of them it doesn’t matter, are the enabler of violence then you must abolish the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and implement a forceful and likely violent recovery of arms in the US.

That will fail. But that is the only intellectually honest position one can hold because a partial ban, a partial limit or any of these other asinine proposals are all just to make the scared, ignorant, and angry voters vote for the person who said the thing they liked about solving the thing they are scared of.

That is it.