I think we often build a tolerance for the things we hear and see frequently.  Guns and bullets are almost a way of life.  We see daily news about people killed and we tend to take an impersonal view of this as if ‘its just another shooting’ unless sensationalized by the media.  We have grown to expect a mass shooting every few years and each time vow to change the laws to make such events less likely but nothing ever significantly changes.  The Constitutional Right to bear arms make gun control laws difficult if not impossible to legislate and the NRA and gun advocates have very strong lobbies to deter any laws so people keep on getting killed or maimed by guns.

But when we hear of wives getting acid thrown on them by irate husbands or of a woman being stoned to death or a criminal beheaded we think how barbaric and inhumane these acts are.  In our minds these acts seem more morally reprehensible and violations of human rights than being shot by guns and bullets because such events are extremely rare in this country.  Yet few bystanders get injured by acid throwing, stoning, and beheading.  Bullets on the other-hand frequently kill and maim unintended victims.  They can do more damage than the other forms of mutilation and killings.  Bullets often kill and maim more innocent bystanders than intended victims and do not discriminate between age or gender.  Infants, young children, and women are as likely innocent victim of gun violence as adult men.  Bullets can travel great distances and be fired rapidly at many rounds per second quickly killing many innocent victims.  Bullets also fragment into many pieces which can strike multiple victims.  Yet we consider the bearing of arms more of a Constitutional Right than the privilege of driving a car.  Killing by firearms are not considered violating the human rights of victims.  One has more of a right to bar arms than to carry tasers or mace.  How crazy is that?

So if someone coming from a place where guns and stoning and acid throwing and beheading did not exist were to witness these various means of socially tolerated destructive behaviors which one do you think they would find the most socially and morally reprehensible violation of human rights?

Bullets have caused more death, destruction, and mayhem to mankind throughout modern history than any other form of destruction short of disease.  Mankind has the ability to cure destruction from bullets tomorrow, but he lacks the will.  Mankind has the will to cure all diseases by tomorrow but not the ability.  In the United States where the Supreme Court has determined that the 2nd Amendment grantees the Constitutional Right for all to bear arms, that Will is virtually vanquished.

So where do the most moral and social violations of human rights exist?  We seek social justice for cruel and inhumane practices in other nations.  But the cruelest and most inhumane practice by a long shot is happening from those possessing guns in our very own country and we seem powerless to do anything about it.  No wonder we seek to irradiate injustices elsewhere.  It is so much easier than doing it here in the U.S.  This seems so ironically if it weren’t so tragic.

Somehow this nation has gotten its screws put on backwards and the threads stripped to shreds.  We are the only nation to have ever had gun ownership as a constitutional right.  It is no wonder why others nations haven’t made it a constitutional right.  If this was the intention of our founding forefathers when writing the 2nd Amendment then it was very shortsighted of them considering how farsighted the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written.

Don’t forget to click Like if you enjoyed reading this post.

Related Articles:

• Imposing Human Rights and Moral Values on Others
• The Right to Bear Arms – Did Founding Fathers Intend it for All?
• The Right to Bear Arms – Or Not
• Keeping Fire Arms out of the hands of More Criminals, Ex-Cons and Minors