In the
wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, I have tried to stay out of the Gun Control
debate all weekend, due to the fact that I have very firm feelings. But one
thing that struck me over the weekend is this: to a man, every single proponent
of firmer gun control laws talked about how certain types of firearms are
"unnecessary" for hunting or self defense. These weren't just
journalists, but politicians as well.
Funny, how not a single one of them points out that the Second Amendment wasn't
established with hunting in mind at all, and self-defense being a very small
reason. I haven't heard a SINGLE person (so called "expert")
bring up the fact that the Second Amendment was in fact established to vouchsafe the
populace against the tyranny of government. The United States government. Yours
and mine.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the
right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against
tyranny in government." – Thomas
Jefferson
The fact that none of these politicians bring this up should surprise me, but
does not. Governments by nature want to hold on to (and/or grow) their power.
Firearms threaten that, which therefore makes sense that you don't hear about
this (most important) aspect of the Second Amendment.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to
yield and government to gain ground." –
Thomas Jefferson
The greatest enemy of a police state Big Brother government is a populace that
is both well-informed and armed. Since the US was established and the
Constitution drafted, governments across the world have killed hundreds of
millions of people--their own citizens. Not so in the US, and there is a reason
for that.
"This year will go down in history. For the first time,
a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our
police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the
future!"
– Adolph Hitler [1935] The Weapons Act of Nazi
Germany.
I have heard it surmised that the Founders of our government never envisioned a
world where one could purchase an .223 AR-15 with a 30-round magazine when they
drafted the Declaration of Independence; that this document was drafted based
on a world of muskets that required 20 seconds to load, aim and fire a single
round. That's utter hogwash and anyone spewing that drivel either A.)Has an
agenda, or B.)Doesn't understand the purpose of the Second Amendment. It was put in
place so that average citizens could--in the event of tyranny or dictatorship--band
together in the form of organized militias (almost exactly as they did during
the Revolutionary War) in order to combat the forces of the government. If the
intent is to ensure the population can effectively combat soldiers that in 2012
are carrying M-4s and SCAR-17s, then of
course it makes sense that
the average citizen should be able to purchase one.
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS
or the SA--ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't
serve the State." – Heinrich
Himmler
The Second Amendment ensures that the government is sufficiently scared of the
population, which is exactly what it is intended for. The Second
Amendment is what gives teeth to the rest of the Bill of Rights, and ensures
"government of the people, by the people, for the people." The rights
to freedoms of speech, assembly, religion, etc. don't mean squat without the
Second Amendment, because it is the right to bear arms that ensures the people are in power.
"When the government fears the people, it is liberty.
When the people fear the government, it is tyranny." – Thomas Paine
Sadly, this liberty has a price; collateral damage. We see it every day,
According to the CDC, approximately 19,000 people were murdered in America in
2009; that's roughly 46 people per
day. I won't get into the rise of mass murders over the last few decades,
which in my mind is more a function of the use/abuse of psychotropic drugs
amongst our youth than anything else. But the bottom line is this: people die
every day through violence in America. And this is a side effect of living in a
free society. It sucks, and I would love for us to find a way as a society to
make it better.
The hard question is: is it an acceptable side effect of living in a free
society? I would say it is. But that's a hard question that most people don't
want to answer. How do you tell someone that lost a loved one in a shooting
that it was "acceptable collateral damage"? It's not nice, it's not
polite, and it's certainly not politically correct. But it's still accurate.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Benjamin Franklin
But when you accept the fact that we are debating the future of a nation, and
the rights of your children and your children's children to grow up in free
society, then it's a hard question that must be asked.
"Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat
you." – Benjamin Franklin
And we all know how I feel about sheep.
