We respond with prayer. We respond with sympathy. We respond by bringing the perpetrator to full and meaningful justice.
Do we respond by further limiting of the freedoms of the individual citizen?
During the various wars that this country has endured, we have spent millions of American lives to preserve our freedoms. In general there is agreement, except for a few cases, that these lives were spent in a good cause. I am not suggesting that war is good, only that it seems to be necessary to insure the freedoms of the many…for the greater good…and that loss of life goes with this defense of freedom.
I sympathize with the victims, and their families, of the madman in Aurora, just as I sympathize with the military dead killed by a madman in Iraq and their families, I wonder if the loss of a few, far less than are spent in wars, in the preservation of our domestic freedoms, the 2nd amendment in particular, is not acceptable in the aggregate? Yes, in the individual case, it is painful or life terminating and I don’t mean to minimize the personal losses of INNOCENT victims. And, of course, soldiers are fully aware of their voluntary injection into the fight whereas civilians are not.
We could eliminate all gun deaths, as we could eliminate all war, by laying down and giving up our freedoms, but is it worth the loss of so much freedom, for the greater good, to eliminate war or to eliminate gun fatalities. Isnt the greater good harmed by such a course of action?
I think so.