Sunday, January 13, 2013

Freedom of Speech Control



In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy, we as Americans had the opportunity to be serenaded by the extremists on both ends of the spectrum as to the most effective avenue to curb violence.  From arming the teachers to banning firearms, obvious solutions were acting as the rope in a giant tug of war match being played by the media.  

The knee-jerk reactions completely ignored the details and questions that should have been asked.  For example, Adam Lanza was diagnosed as autistic, mentally handicapped.  How was it even possible that he would have access to firearms.  Residences with handicapped persons and are subsidized by the government are subject to higher safety standards.  Inspections are supposed to take place regularly to ensure those safety standards are met.  Who dropped the ball on this one?  

People with autism struggle to get themselves dressed.  How in the world did he learn to operate an AR-15, or any gun?  How did he have the mental capacity to destroy his computer, get to the school, realize authorities were closing in on him, and pull the trigger on himself, effectively covering his tracks.

Instead, Americans thoughts were immediately turned towards preventing such heinous crimes from happening in the future.  Ironically, it was a British man that offered the most sensible solution.  Piers Morgan stated that any American who failed to see the need for more gun control are idiots.  Gun control is a compromise of these two solutions.  It doesn't place a ban on guns, and it makes it more difficult for irresponsible persons to get their hands on firearms.  

As of right now, purchasing a firearm is as easy as a criminal background check.  Why not include a pharmaceutical background check as well?  My feelings wouldn't be hurt if persons taking medications for mental stability were spurned from a firearm purchase.  Or what if those background checks looked into the other residents of the household?  

Or what if food stamp recipients were prohibited from purchasing firearms?  They shouldn't have the money for one anyway.  If they give up their right to be self-sustaining, it only makes sense that they are willing to forfeit other freedoms.  There is nothing wrong with a little more gun control if it is logically sound.

What intrigues me is the reaction to Morgan's comments.  Tens of thousands petitioned to have Piers Morgan deported because of his statement.  Morgan then stated that he would consider deporting himself if nothing happened.

Isn't it ironic that those 2nd amendment enthusiasts aren't so enthusiastic about the 1st amendment.  It is a violation to set rules on firearms, but the freedom of speech and the freedom of press should be regulated.  Perhaps they are the mentally handicapped.

No comments:

Post a Comment