Before you re-post this to the “hate-speech police” (and yes there is such a group), I don’t mean to suggest that we have a less ““. I mean tolerance as defined by “The permissible range of variation in the dimensions of an object.” Words have meaning and perhaps it’s time to tolerate less toleration with our words and in our speech.
According to an Associated Press Report, Hawaii could be the first US State to place gun owners on a FBI database known as “Rap Back” which serves to notify Police if an island resident is arrested anywhere in the United States.
There are, and will be, plenty of honest and sincere people on both sides of this contentious issue. Some people sincerely believe that fewer guns increases safety, while others sincerely believe that more guns increases safety.
Count me in the latter group. While working as an armed security guard at a retail location in Dayton, Ohio which had recently been held up, I frequently fielded questions about carrying in the store. Since it wasn’t posted, it was legal to do so, and I always responded the same way – I wish everyone would bring a gun. We’d all be more polite, and more safe if we all carried handguns.
But I digress.
The sentence in the article which riveted my attention was:
“Yet others say gun owners shouldn’t have to be entered in a database to practice a constitutional right.”
Time for tighter tolerances.
The sentence should read: Yet others say gun owners shouldn’t have to be entered in a database to practice a constitutionally guaranteed right. Notice the difference?
The right of self-defense is a fundamental human right, granted by God to his creatures. The means of self-defense is dictated by the threat you face. All law recognizes proportionality in meeting force with force. You can only use force to defend yourself which is equal to the force being used against you. But you must have access to whatever tools are necessary to equalize that force. That brings us to guns.
A 60 year old man, or a 110 lb woman, or a 12 year old child will all be at a disadvantage if attacked by a 20 year old thug. In order to meet force with force, a gun is required to make up the difference. Denying them that gun, is to deny them the opportunity to exercise self-defense, a God given right. And the US Constitution guarantees that you will maintain that right of self-defense, by guaranteeing that you can have access to the gun you will need.
None of the rights enumerated in the bill of rights, the 1st 10 amendments to the US Constitution, are granted by the government, they are human rights protected FROM governmental infringement by our Constitution. The men who wrote the Constitution thought that enumerating their God-given rights was unnecessary. But, fortunately for us, some states, Virginia for one – which included the territory now known as Kentucky, refused ratification until a bill of rights was promised to be included.
And the Kentucky State Constitution lists several God-given rights which it guarantees. It says:
All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:
First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties.
Second: The right of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences.
Third: The right of seeking and pursuing their safety and happiness.
Fourth: The right of freely communicating their thoughts and opinions.
Fifth: The right of acquiring and protecting property.
Sixth: The right of assembling together in a peaceable manner for their common good, and of applying to those invested with the power of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.
Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.
So you see, the right to defend your liberty in Kentucky which is 1st on the list, is later coupled with your right to bear arms, the 7th in the list. And these are constitutionally guaranteed rights. Not constitutional rights. There is a difference. We need less tolerance in our speech.
Author’s note: Hate Speech is constitutionally guaranteed speech. It would be unnecessary for the framers of the constitution to guarantee a right to speech which offended no one.