With the recent attack at that Florida high school, we are once again inundated with all manner of tired and useless suggestions about how to prevent the next one, all dealing with denying law-abiding citizens their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. While these tragic events also compel facts and truths gun-grabbing, gun control advocates continue to ignore...if they ever take the time to actually research them in the first place...it is incumbent upon rational, honest people to re-iterate those truths and facts every time. With that in mind, I intend to post as many arguments for reason as is necessary in order to have them all aired in one place. I will endeavor to support each one with links to evidence and facts that justify the positions I will put forth.
To begin, I wish to state my personal opinion on the issue of gun rights. It begins with the United States Constitution. This document is a restriction on government...specifically the federal government...and it acknowledges rights we already possess by virtue of the fact that we exist at all. So, we don't possess the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because the federal government bestows those rights upon us. We were born with those rights already a part of us in the same way we were born with two arms. Government is obliged to respect those rights and the Constitution is the law that imposes that obligation by restricting the government from infringing upon those rights.
The 2nd Amendment, then, protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose, primarily, of defending ourselves against the government, as well as for personal defense against all else. Hunting and sport shooting was of no concern when crafting the 2nd Amendment. With that in mind, where's the sense in allowing the government (federal, state or municipal) to dictate whether or not I own a firearm, when and where I can carry one and what type f firearm I choose for the purpose? The Constitution considers government the threat...the "bad guy" in this equation...and yet we decide that the potential oppressor gets to dictate to those it seeks to oppress how to deal with the oppression to be inflicted. It's really insanity.
Thus, my position is that it is absolutely none of the government's business if I own a gun, what kind of gun it is, how many I own and whether or not I can carry it openly or concealed on my person. They have no Constitutional authority to regulate any of that so long as I remain a law-abiding citizen, and that includes actual "military grade" weaponry, such as fully automatic weapons.
Oh, my! He didn't just say that, did he? Is he nuts?
No. I'm quite sane so far as anyone honestly can say. Back in the day, when our nation was still pulling up its Pampers, all "military grade" weapons were produced privately, not by the government. This was true well into the 19th century. Even the Gatling gun was invented and produced privately and sold first to railroads (along with some others) to control striking workers. The Army got them later.
More importantly, the founders recognized that the able-bodied, law-abiding citizens...also known as "the militia"...needed to have weapons capable of fending off a rogue government. This means that were Thompson Sub-machine Guns available at that time, the people would likely have had them first, and the founders would have been totally cool with it. The concept is a simple one: how does one keep the bully (despotic governments) at bay while giving the bully all the superior firepower?
(Before going any further, I wish to insist that I can provide links with supporting evidence for all I say and believe, and will do so in later posts on this subject as needed. Right now, I'm merely laying down a premise.)
Even the founders can be noted supporting these concepts. They were inspired by an Italian guy named Cesare Beccaria, from his Essay on Crimes and Punishments, whence comes the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.
"A Principle source of errors and injustice, are false ideas of utility. For example, that legislator has false ideas of utility, who considers particular more than general convenience; who had rather command the sentiments of mankind, than excite them, and dares to reason, "Be thou a slave;" who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages, to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire, for fear of being burnt, and of water, for fear of being drowned; and who knows of know means of preventing evil but by destroying it.
The laws of this nature, are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and the wise legislator; and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages rather than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack armed than unarmed persons."
This moral has been manifested repeatedly with regard to self-protection...or the lack thereof, and we've seen it with all of these school shootings where the unarmed are at the mercy of the armed. But the poor thinkers believe that new laws can make a difference, as if the many laws already on the books on any number of behaviors has ever prevented someone from engaging in those behaviors.
No, the laws that people are seeking...those people who want the government to "do something"...are definitively, distinctly and by definition those that are examples of our inherent right to own and bear arms.
The problem is not now, nor has it ever been guns. It is the character of people. It is the absolutely insane idea of posting for all to see the message that those within are totally and absolutely unprotected because they inhabit a "gun free zone". It is the unwillingness to accept the reality of the existence of evil in the world (unless they want to apply the word to Republicans or Christians) and the ongoing struggle between it and goodness. It is the rejection of the notion that a God exists and is waiting to judge us for our sins. But it is not guns.
That's all for now. More to come in future posts.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)