Law & Disorder
Big government, little town
If you’re a head of household in little Nelson, Georgia, you’re about to be required to have a gun and ammo. If you want to, and if you can afford it. But not if you’re a convicted felon or have certain physical or mental disabilities.
The law is just a stupid as the reasons for it.
The police chief, also the town’s only police officer, said he hoped the law would make Nelson safer. But he didn’t have any stats on just how unsafe Nelson is now, before the law. “Very minimal,” he told ABC. “I couldn’t even give you a percentage.” He also said he could “count on one hand” the number of people who opposed the new law in a town where “95 percent of the people already have a gun in their home.”
Apparently he could have counted on one finger (guess which one). “Even the guy who is complaining about it, even he has a gun,” the chief said.
City Council member Jackie Jarrett admitted the law also aimed at showing the town’s support of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which some people — mostly those who get their news from organizations that make it up as they go — erroneously think is endangered. Seems to me a simple resolution saying “We the city council and police chief of Nelson support the right of citizens to own and bear arms” would do that without being, you know, burdensome.
So what if the one guy who didn’t like the law owns a gun? That guy must be the only one in town who actually understands what the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually are about. Owning a gun isn’t the point. It’s about government infringement into the private lives of your citizens, telling them what they can and cannot do, which you even acknowledge, but don’t seem to care about.
Let’s play a little hypothetical game. What if the city council said you had to have a bible in your house? Oh, I bet that’s just fine. Everybody in Nelson is a Christian, or at least 95 percent are, so no big deal? Then how about a Koran? What if you were required to own a Koran?
Now wait a minute. That wouldn’t happen, you say, because everybody’s a Christian. No Muslims here! So, why would the law requiring a bible be necessary? And what about the other 5 percent?
I have an even better idea. Let’s say you’re a head of household here in my town, which is even smaller than yours (and has a bigger police force). We have a fairly large and open gay population. Several of our city council members are gay. Even the mayor is. The straight people report no problems with their marriages because of gay couples living next door. But what if our city council voted 5-0 that every household in town needed to have at least one homosexual?
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.” ― unknown
What’s that say when it’s 95 to 5?
Now, I can’t say 95 percent of our population is gay, but I’m pretty sure 95 percent would have no problem having a gay man or lesbian in their household. So what’s the problem? And my new law isn’t gonna require someone already in your household to turn gay, although that would certainly be acceptable. You just have to go out and find a gay to live in your house. That’s it! Very simple.
Well, I guess you could opt out if you had some “personal objections” to gay people living in your house, although that would label you a bigot. And I suppose if you’re gonna go all ballistic and yell and stuff I’d have to consider that you have some mental disability and could exempt you from the law for that. And besides, we’re not gonna enforce it or anything. It’s just to make a point.
Would that be OK? Or is my law still intrusive?
If you said it’s still intrusive, I’m gonna have to agree with you, just like I think that ignorant law in Nelson (and its grandfather in Kennesaw) are prime examples of government overstepping its bounds.
But I know how people like you see it. People like you think that government intrusion into private lives is just fine as long as you favor the reason behind it. But the thing is, it’s not OK, dude. It’s not OK to tell me I have to own a gun and ammo, even if you’re not gonna enforce it or even if I already own a gun. It’s not OK to tell me I can’t marry the woman I love, even if I have no desire whatsoever to do so. It’s not OK for you to tell me where I can and cannot work, or live, or tell me I can’t have an abortion, even if I’m way past the age when that would even be possible.
Or hell, maybe I’m completely wrong, and this little law of yours is just some aberration that you didn’t think all the way through. Maybe y’all would be fine if I got married, even here in Georgia, or signed up as a deputy in your police force or moved in next door with my girlfriend. Just as long as we owned a gun or two.
Either way, I want you to know that I truly don’t care what you do on these issues, as long as you don’t make laws that direct what I do or don’t do. So go ahead, own a gun, marry someone of the opposite gender, bear any children you conceive whether you want to or not, and please, please, please, stay in Nelson. I promise I won’t move up there and mess up your quieter-than-Mayberry town. I happen to be quite fond of mine, and besides, I’d rather not live in a place where the majority passes laws aimed at making statements.
Especially when those statements aren’t based on reality, you know, like you want to tell the gummint you ain’t gonna give up your guns. That may play in Mayberry Light, but even there, there’s at least one guy who thinks that’s a dumb idea. Might be a good idea to listen to him.
- Mob rule quote originally attributed, incorrectly, to Thomas Jefferson.