Words of wisdom from a founding father...
Unfortunately (and sadly) I have to preface this type of post with a statement: If you are "anti-gun", that's fine. I respect your choices and opinions, even if I may not agree with them. Just make sure you aren't suffering from rectal cranial dislocation and have a VALID reason for being "anti-gun", not just because that's what CNN or Fox
( Read more... )
Is this something that you are OK with, or proud of that we have to do in this country of so-called free people?
Also understand that with the current state of affairs, there are those in our government that are pushing for unconstitutional allowances giving unmanned drones the ability to be used to kill anybody; U.S. Citizen or not, on U.S. soil, without any semblance of due process. Just, boom. So and so thinks you _might_ be linked to terrorism, so you die. No trials, no recourse, just suddenly a dead body and good ol' boys in a black trailer patting themselves on the back.
While I agree with your assertion that while the second amendment may not protect us from many of the high tech alternative killing and control methods in the world today, it is still a very viable and relevant amendment. Think about it this way.
There are only about 20 UAVs (let me show a little glimmer of conspiracy theorist here by adding: that we know of) used for combat. Should, heaven forbid, we as a nation of free people be put into such a horrific situation as to need to take arms up against our government, it won't be drones that out gun or out maneuver us. They carry limited supplies of ammo, and when those are exhausted they have to land to be refueled and refitted with armament. People will pick them off pretty fast, and then troops would need to roll in to maintain order.
In the end, there is no possible scenario where you don't end up with neighbor (soldier) versus neighbor (civilian) pointing a gun at one another.
It is vital that when the soldier is ordered to perform an illegal and unconstitutional action of attacking Americans on American soil that those Americans NOT be unarmed. They MUST have the ability to resist and fight back. Sticks and stones are not a prudent option until the bitter end.
One might hope that the soldier is of high enough moral standing to refuse such an order, but we can't know for certain.
It doesn't matter if the civilians lose due to inferior numbers, or the fact that they don't have high tech body armor or armor piercing bullets, grenades, tanks, etc... It is VITAL that they have the ability to resist those who would take their lives.
The goal of how the Second Amendment was drafted was to ensure that the populous be armed as well, or nearly as well as the permanently formed militia; our modern day military. When called to arms, you must provide weaponry and ammunition from your own personal stock. Yes, I submit that such a provision was far more relevant when there were not as many firearms available because they were expensive and hard to manufacture, however even that provision is vital to the Amendment itself and to us should we ever find ourselves (yes, it is an extreme hypothetical in the world today) invaded or attacked by another country.
(cont...)
Reply
But we so often focus on the fact that the Second Amendment was written primarily as a check and balance for our own government, we forget that it was also written to allow us the populous to resist invasion by foreign countries.
A Japanese quote from WW2 goes: "We will not invade America, because there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
It was not the military they were fearful of.
I saw someone recently speculate that if the more than ten thousand students at Tienanmen Square were armed, perhaps not so many of them would have forever disappeared.
Perhaps if Jews in Germany hadn't given up arms as ordered by their government, who told them "Don't worry, we'll take care of you," not so many of them may have disappeared and they would have been able to resist the genocide more effectively.
It was fortuitous for Switzerland that during WW2 they were not invaded when every country around them was. Every able-bodied Swiss citizen is required to not only own a firearm, but be proficient in the use of it. Hitler did not want to invade "The Little Porcupine". Even today, every citizen is armed and gun crime is the lowest than anywhere in the world.
If the Koreans had not been armed during the LA riots and stood their ground, their businesses would have been burned to the ground like all of the others. Theirs stood, because they were able to stand their ground and defend themselves.
There are, sadly, so many examples throughout history where a populous is disarmed only to have the government steamroll through and take power in the most brutal way. Or that a neighboring nation invades. Or simply one maladjusted individual who is not as honest as everyone else in giving up arms who feels that he needs what another man has, and is willing to kill for it.
In closing, my friend, I wholeheartedly support and agree with the quote from Mr. Jefferson that you put forward. It is apt in every way. It is a wonderful supporting statement for the necessity of the Second Amendment.
Yes, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. But, he was also an important figure in the anti-slave movement. According to what was recorded, he never mistreated his slaves. He took great care of them and never expected them to perform more work on his farm than any free farmer could or would. Remember, owning your very own black man was a cultural norm at the time and should you not have a slave or object to owning slaves, you may very well be killed. Another sad, dark page in our history books. Even those who were anti-slave, especially one in such a position as Jefferson was and with as much land as he had, had to put forward the illusion of being an every day Joe. Which meant owning slaves.
Reply
2. Look up the arsenal siezed at the Branch Davidian compound as an example. That was Waco and years ago, and they never stood a sorry chance. The armament and capability of the US government so far exceeds anything that can possibly be aquired by private citizens that thinking even a widely armed and rebellious population can hold their own is laughable. If you don't believe me, ask anyone who has ever served in the US military in the past ten years if an armed civillian is a real problem. Take a look at Afghanistan, where the local rebels are hidden in the population, dedicated, and have years of military-style training and experience over decades of internal strife as well as military hardware supplied by outside supporters. They've given the US a bloody nose, to be sure, but Afghan fighters have taken very heavy losses. And those are people who can live off the land and don't have surveilance cameras on every other corner. Imagine what the Army could do on their home turf. How many rebellions could they put down just by turning off the power and water or stopping the food trucks at the city limits? If this country gets to the point where you have to shoot a soldier to keep your guns, they will take them out of your hands, warm or cold, dead or alive. Trusting in the Second Amendment to protect your freedoms until that point is an invitation for them to do so.
3. So all that about liberty and freedom? What liberty has the second amendment protected beside itself? What freedoms has it promoted or defended? Compare that to the results of the Civil Rights marchers, or the Gay Rights organizers. Journalists, community activists, the League of Women Voters, and voters themselves. Hell, even lawyers have done more to protect and promote American liberties. Lawyers.
4. How about all those other democracies around the world without a Second Amendment? Didn't read the foreign section of Google News yet today. Are they collapsing into tyranny yet? Government can't read your e-mail in France. No massive German drone program. Japan elections are free and fair. Haven't heard of waterboarding in Australia. Flag is still flying over the British Isles. So...
You want to protect liberties? Vote for them. And if you vote for the guy who protected your second amendment while shredding the others, then the right to bear arms will be nothing more than the last one you lose.
Reply
Leave a comment