After reading an article in the newspaper dated January 24, 2013 on page 22A there appeared a column, which I found rather interesting, since, liken too many citizens in a free Republic, most citizens, save a few, appear to be clueless as to the original founding intention of our Second Amendment Rights. And secondly, to those of whom lash out against fellow, law abiding American citizens with a rather myopic and bios opinion of firearms should first read, if at all possible, the Federalist Papers written by patriots James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and of course John Jay. In which the intention to defend, protect and preserve the Constitutional –unalienable –or God given rights were given to every citizen, including, but not limited to, the writers of the aforementioned article.
Therein, one finds, the founders, had recently experienced joy of freedom from the tyrannical rule of a Monarch, by the means of firearms, bloodshed and the killing of British soldiers. Having experienced this, the founders also realized, history will invariably repeat itself, given the lethargic nature of humanity. And, they were spot on. It is, and always has been, mankind’s intrinsic nature to become complacent towards government, therefore –the founders wrote its “solution” ; which was simple.
Arm the civilian populous with firearms equal to, that which the government autocracy possesses, thus creating a balance of power between the autocracy who govern and the governed. This action then, granted to the populous the power to fend off despotism, a condition which they had recently rectified. And ‘tis not by accident that the founders of the republic chose to make the second amendment, second.
The action of the Second Continental Congress, on July 4th 1776 did so; make a “The Declaration of Independence” in which it stated such things as;
“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them”.
“They” –meaning citizens,
“Are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable (God given) rights, among these are Life –Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness –That to secure these rights, government are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed –(us) that whenever any form of government destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it”.
And furthermore, the Congress went on to express the full intention of our second amendment rights, nowhere, does the document say “For home protection”, nor is there any restriction placed thereon, The Constitution continues;
“Experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, then to right themselves by abolishing the form to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same objective, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is the duty, to throw off such government”…. How, pray tell, without a balance of firearm power?
Inferences in the newspaper article were made which require clarity, such as and I quote “Firearms should not be sold, traded or illegally available to individuals who legally lost their right to own a firearm”. Which I agree with, in fact those of whom sell, or trade firearms to any illegal source, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law; starting with the US Attorney General Erick Holder who, at his behest, had the ATF sell and or traded assault weapons to Mexican drug lords in a government sponsored action called “fast and furious” which it is trying desperately to sweep under the rug. Or is the Justice Department above the law? And if so, why are there laws?
Secondly, indeed, as the article further points out a “national registry” should be enacted, to close so called “loopholes;” this is an exercise in foolishness, since such an action further restricts the rights of the law abiding citizen, not the criminal. Secondly, statistics have proven; the states without firearm control, contain less crime, not more, it is called “common sense”. And moreover, if law abiding citizens are armed to protect themselves against government despotism, as the Declaration clearly states, registration thereof, would be counterproductive to the cause of individual freedom. Ya think!
Thirdly, true as the writer expressed, “A firearm is an exclusive killing machine. It serves no other purpose”. That is unless one lives in California, where to merely transport a firearm to a shooting range, where one may “kill from an ambush” paper targets, the weapon: (since that is what it is) must be, ready for this, unloaded in a case with a locking device around the trigger…then; the ammunition must be transported in another part of the vehicle; hence, the restrictions are so stringent for law abiding citizens [only] the firearms only purpose then is no longer a weapon, unless however, whilst being carjacked, I hit the assailant on the head with the butt end of it.
The kind hearted liberal minded should consider this, conversely, the gang banger with trousers down to his buttocks and a hooded sweatshirt large enough for two people, has no difficulty concealing a hand gun therein. Nor, do they care if, for some stroke of luck are captured in possession thereof, in all likelihood their limited incarceration in the criminals recreational resort would be a welcome, vis-a-vis their brotherhood dwelling therein. And, by the way, has the article writer ever heard of the “Black Market” where “Any firearm” can be purchased, where cash talks, and not one question is asked?
As to the question posed “Who needs an automatic firing weapon”? With questions such as this one must conclude that factual truisms are meaningless, or the writer is ignorant of facts. The fact is, “automatic firing weapons” are restricted to law enforcement and the military -Only. Or, are the words “automatic firing weapons” utilized as a physiological ploy to demonise the, as the writer put it, “NRA’s twisted logic”. Too often, those citizens with misguided emotions, possess razor like tongues, whom then, utilize words such as “Raw killing instinct” to describe hunters and sportsman, or, the term “Insane proliferation of firearms” to describe the purchase of firearms by law abiding citizens, might, for their sake, ask themselves if their intention is to heal society or kill with words.
Lastly, the latest tragedies involving a firearm, hast triggered a firestorm of emotions because of a gun, yet paradoxically, the firearm protestors are the same people who condone the use of a title like Dr. and the use of a scalpel as a license to kill the innocent.
As for me, taking away my firearm would save lots of helpless pieces of paper from the onslaught of my “insane ambush” on the local shooting range.