Orlando and Wounded Knee

I was working the day of the tragedy in Orlando and I worked the day after, when our President publicly addressed this heartbreaking event. I had time between calls to listen to his address and after reflecting on it, I took away from it a clear message about our rights as American citizens.

There are some frightening ideas that have surfaced in the wake of the recent shootings. Sadly, some have rejoiced at the killing of homosexuals. A few have gone as far as to say it was God’s will that they be killed. Some think we ought to close mosques and lock up anyone who preaches Jihad. The President, in his address, passionately argued that we cannot under any circumstance allow the freedoms of our citizens to be taken from them based on their religion or sexual orientation.

Because most of the recent mass killings have come at the hands of radical Muslims, some have suggested we consider restricting entry into our borders anyone coming from a nation known for breeding and exporting terrorism. In his response to this idea, the President noted that there can never be a religious litmus test that determines whether one should be allowed entry into the U.S.. On this point, he is right. However, it is a slightly more complicated issue.

If you happen to be a foreigner, you are not guaranteed the right to visit our country. It is within our rights as a nation to evaluate your background when you apply for a travel visa or citizenship. There are a number of things which, if they turn up on your background check, can cause your application to be rejected. Entry into our country is a privilege, not a guaranteed right. This is how it works in nearly every nation in the world. And although I think we would be wise to carefully vet those who enter our country from nations known for exporting terror—especially when the terrorists themselves have said their goal is to infiltrate our country—we can become overzealous and oppressive if we’re not careful.

The president didn’t mention it, but the reason homosexuals, Pagans, Jews, Christians and Muslims have the freedom to live as they wish is because of the constitution, which guarantees these rights. I applaud his passion in defending the rights that our citizens are given in the first amendment of the constitution. But as soon as he had finished this part of his message, he addressed what has become his other major passion—the issue of gun control.

He suggested that as a nation the world looks to for leadership, we must rethink our position on guns and we must understand that civilized societies do not need to be armed. He argued that this tragic killing only further proves that we can’t be trusted with deadly weapons. And in doing so, the President, who just a few minutes earlier said we cannot characterize an entire group by the actions of a few, painted all gun owners as untrustworthy because of the actions of a few.

What became obvious in his speech is that the President is willing to defend the constitutional rights of some groups, but he is not interested in defending the rights of all groups. In his hierarchy of groups who deserve to have their rights defended, homosexuals and Muslims rank higher than gun owners. He has a preference for defending the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, but not the second amendment. Unfortunately, the same is true for many of us.

I have many dear friends who live outside the U.S. They have no guns and they’re perfectly content to live without them. They deride us yanks over our foolish insistence on preserving our right to own guns. Some look at the way we cling to an old document written centuries ago and think we’ve gone mad. They see it as a useless relic that had its time, but which now has become obsolete.

There was an even larger mass killing in the U.S. on December 29,1890. On that day somewhere between 150 and 300 Sioux Indians were killed by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry (estimates on the death toll vary). The feds had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after most of the Sioux had peacefully surrendered their weapons. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. Most of victims were unarmed women and children. The Wounded Knee massacre was among the first (but not the only) attempt by the government to confiscate legally owned firearms and it ended in the senseless murder of hundreds of people.