"We Sacralize Death's Instruments And Then Are Surprised That Death Uses Them"
Gun rights are neither sacred, divine, sacrosanct, inviolable, nor immutable. It's time we seized the moral high ground.
In the aftermath of the massacre at Robb Elementary School In Uvalde, TX, many Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes have argued that gun ownership is a sacred right guaranteed to Americans by the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, these folks fail to acknowledge that the 2nd Amendment, the most willfully misinterpreted 27 words in the English language, doesn’t say what they think it says.
Gun ownership is not a “divine right,” and the 2nd Amendment is neither “sacrosanct” nor “inviolable.” Yet again, Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes have chosen to imbue the 2nd Amendment with meaning it neither contains nor was intended to have by the Founding Fathers. Sometimes I have to wonder if Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes have even bothered to read the 2nd Amendment.
The idea that gun ownership is a “divine right” is absurd, a right Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes have conferred upon themselves. Such a right has no theological, moral, historical, OR legal basis.
In an interview with The Pillar, Bishop Daniel Flores of Brownsville, Texas, elaborated on a tweet he made following the horrific mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas and admonished gun-owning Catholics -- and all Americans -- that there is no "divine right" argument to be made about owning a weapon….
"The larger framework, theologically, is the Church’s expectation that civil society must seek after the common good - and that means protecting the vulnerable and exercising reasonable prudence with regard to the order of things. And that's a responsibility not primarily of the Church, but for the human good that any society would have no matter what political system it happens to operate under," he explained before adding. "There is a moral dimension to how we organize ourselves, for the sake of, for example, the good of children, the good of the elderly, the good of the sick, and so on, there are certain laws that need to be constructed in a way that promote the best possible stewardship of human life, and of a peaceable community, so that everyone can live in peace in their local communities and in their countries."
In response to those Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes who believe themselves to be dealing from the moral high ground, Bishop Flores takes issue with that:
"I was referring to the fact that the discourse we’ve had now for decades, about any attempt to control weapons that can cause grave damage — some of which moves have been enacted into law and others which have been resisted — is countered with a description that [gun ownership] is basically an individual’s sacred right, that no matter what the cost, it must be preserved," he explained. "And when I say 'sacralized,' I mean that we make it seem almost as if it detracts from human dignity, or the human good, simply to say that we need to have some reasonable limit on these things. To say something is sacralized is to say it’s almost taken out of any possibility for conversation."
"I must say that in some sense, we have kind of sacralized the whole idea of the individual right, such that it trumps any communal concern. It becomes an untouchable aspect in the discourse, that the common concern for the good of the vulnerable is not in any way sufficient to limit the individual right to determine whether or not I want to own this kind of a gun, or that kind of gun, or, you know, a hand grenade for that matter," he added.
In effect, Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes have placed themselves beyond any conversation by conferring upon themselves the “sacred” right to own guns. They’ve said that because owning guns is a right conferred upon them by God, it’s beyond the control and regulation of Man. Therefore, they can do what they wish, and in whatever form and format they choose. That this “right” is something Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes have invented for their own benefit is something they fail to acknowledge.
Anything that might intrude upon that in even the slightest fashion impinges upon the divine right of Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes- even though nothing in the 2nd Amendment’s 27 words confers that right upon anyone.
The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once opined that the 2nd Amendment was sufficiently broad to allow Americans to own a thermonuclear weapon if they were so inclined. Unfortunately, as learned as the late Justice may have been, absolutely nothing in the most willfully interpreted 27 words in the English language supports such an interpretation.
Not even close.
Bishop Flores makes the case that gun rights are a political consideration, not a sacrament:
"So when you sacralize it, you kind of make it basically closed for discussion, because we practically treat it as if it were sacred," he continued.
There’s nothing sacred about the 2nd Amendment. Its sacralization is merely a tactic used by Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes to cut off any discussion of common-sense gun control. They want to be able to do what they wish, and they don’t want to have to deal with limitations or roadblocks.
Unfortunately, life doesn’t work that way. We all deal with limitations. None of us get to do whatever we want absent checks and balances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
When it comes to gun rights, if you read the text of the 2nd Amendment as a whole, you know that the second 14 words aren’t independent of the first 13. Yet most Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes completely ignore the first 13 words and focus only on “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'“ They’re choosing to cherry-pick the interpretation that benefits their interests.
Neither is there anything in the language of the 2nd Amendment that states or implies that gun use or ownership is an implicit or overt divine right. Yet, the idea of gun rights being a “divine right” has been conjured up out of whole cloth by Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes. These folks brook no dissent regarding their self-ascribed “gun rights”- they’re absolute, God-given, and, therefore, sacrosanct- and therefore not answerable to the laws of man.
Sorry, but no one gets to declare absent the legislative process that their legal rights- regardless of their impact on others- are absolute, inviolable, and not open to question. Rights and responsibilities have historically been balanced between competing groups and interests. But Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes see gun rights as their birthright, and those who advocate for common-sense gun control as anti-American.
Because when you sacralize something, you close it to any discussion or debate. And reasonable, rational people don’t roll that way. And it’s time we seized the moral, financial, and legal high ground.
Because the alternative is standing idly by as more innocents students, teachers, and civilians die in mass shootings.