— from Jean Henigson —
Some you may know me because of my involvement in protecting women’s rights to reproductive choice. But now, I want to express my feelings about Initiative 1639, which places additional restrictions on gun ownership.
Just as the anti-abortion forces are campaigning to incrementally pass laws to not only make abortion illegal, but to create more and more restrictions and barriers for women’s access to family planning in general, so the anti-gun forces are campaigning incrementally to pass laws to prohibit and further restrict personal gun ownership. In exactly the same way, increasingly restrictive gun laws are essentially rendering law abiding and responsible people helpless victims of criminal acts.
Just as I am fiercely against any type of government laws that prohibit a woman’s right to have access to any reproductive medical care she needs and chooses for her own health, I am also fiercely against any type of government laws that prohibit my right to defend myself, and have access to any weapon I need and choose for my own protection.
As a Jew, I have lived my life with constant reminders of the evils of Naziism. The lessons I now take from that is, when I look at totalitarian regimes and police states, one of the very first things they do to seize power is to disarm the population. This has happened throughout history and still goes on now. For that reason, I never want to be rendered helpless to defend myself in any situation, and I don’t want any law to limit my right and ability to do so.
I believe that no law, no matter how airtight, is going to prevent criminals, fanatics, or mentally ill people from getting hold of a gun to kill their victim, or victims.
In regard to Initiative 1639, the existing laws related to background checks, sales and transfers, registration and storage, and types of firearms allowed to be used and sold in Washington are already extensive and reasonable.
So I say, we do not need Initiative 1639.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Yes Jean, each of us must have full and equal exercise of ALL of our individual rights! Including those in the 9th Amendment which, as Madison said, are as “numerous as grains of sand” and as reinforced by the 14th Amendment; “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
Jean, with all respect, nothing in this initiative will restrict your right and ability to defend or protect yourself. How much more harm must we see from crazies with rapid-fire weapons designed solely to kill people? As for protecting yourself against a government gone awry, personal weapons, as a last resort will be too little, too late. I’m sure you’ll agree that VOTING NOW is the best defense.
Exactly what in Initiative 1639 would personally keep you from protecting yourself? You must realize that what happened in Pittsburgh to at least 11 Jewish worshipers killed by an assault weapon is more of a threat than any action imposed by 1639. As a previous president of a Planned Parenthood affiliate I worried constantly about unstable people with easy access to military grade weapons imposing their will upon us. A civil society requires rational restrictions on people. I believe you are sadly mistaken.
Brian,
You seem not to understand the meaning of incrementalism as being a series of steps toward completely eroding the Second Amendment, and how it applies to 1639.
Robert,
Had I been sitting in that synagogue, armed and trained as I am, and especially had other worshipers been armed and trained as well, that killer would never have had a chance to kill 11 people.
Likewise, were I working at a Planned Parenthood clinic or office, I would want to be armed to protect myself and others. Why do you want to disarm all potential victims?
If we step back, Jean, Phil, Brian and Robert’s views might be consistent.
Despite our desire to work together to find common purpose in today’s rapidly changing world, trends have been in place for some time; they point to some probabilities:
1. Partitions or Divisions via loosely bound regional republics;
or
2. A much more centralized State apparatus that will necessarily diminish individual freedoms (by re-interpreting them) in more ways than the mere removal of firearms from the general population.
Why?
We’re not innately more “evil” than yesteryear (our natures don’t de/evolve, empirically). There’s just more of us in the same space- 10 billion of us in a few decades and rapidly growing.
Over-crowding, diminishing resources, automation, and a growing need for more refined education to survive/prosper will greatly stratify society in hardened ways– a high probability (the “softened” versions are in place).
The visible results: more friction, growing dysfunction and social pathologies; continued division due to “natural” as well as “nurtured” inequalities; and a greater consumption of and competition for finite natural resources.
Possible mediation: science and technology (but at 10 billion and counting…???)
Either society WILL BE re-imagined (in spite of all the kicking and screaming) so that we survive;
or
Ironically, a lesser self-conscious iteration of nature will likely follow in our place.
Initiative 1639?