Gun Control? Never!
The tragedy this week in Virginia saddens me, as it saddens everybody, I am sure.
This time should be a time for reflection, and if it works for you, prayer.
Unfortunately, there are those who cannot resist any opportunity to impose their tyranny upon us.
Sure as winter follows fall, comes now the cry for more control on guns. Granted, it hasn’t been as loud as in the past—most of the attention is being given unfairly to Virginia Tech administrators—but ‘the usual suspects’ are making their usual noise. By the way, don’t mistake these fools for liberals. Real liberals believe in the rights of the people over the government.
I don’t need to repeat all the evils of gun control—Right Wing radio does that just fine.
What does need repeating is the intention of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the second amendment.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
James Madison, writing in The Federalist Papers (no. 46) described a militia as, “. . . citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties . . .”
In the eighteenth century, that’s what a "militia" was. Any group of men (sorry ladies) that organized to protect itself qualified as a militia. Back then, “well regulated” meant well trained. “State” meant condition, as in “State of the Union,” not one of the states in the country.
Written in modern English, it would say, “In order to secure their freedoms, it will be necessary for citizens to arm themselves, organize, and train. Therefore the right to own arms shall not be infringed.”
The second amendment was written to protect us from the government these men were constructing. They knew that in time, governments devolve into tyranny. They left a method for the people to prevent that. They knew that it takes firepower to keep your personal liberties. Notice that they wisely left out the definition of “arms.” They knew something better than a musket would come along.
Personally, I believe that if the government has “arms,” then the people should have those same arms to protect themselves from the government. I believe that was James Madison’s intention.
An extreme view, perhaps.
However, as the great Barry Goldwater once said, that is not a vice.
Comments
"Personally, I believe that if the government has “arms,” then the people should have those same arms to protect themselves from the government. I believe that was James Madison’s intention."
Should the people have nuclear weapons, land mines, tanks and apache attack choppers too then?
If not, then do you think we are going to be able to stop the mightiest military in the world with deer rifles?
And if we are going to use our weapons to protect ourselves against an oppressive government, woudln't now be a good time to start?
===============================================
Thank you for writing.
The answer to your first question is yes.
I agree with you on the last question.
Posted by: Tasker | April 20, 2007 12:55 PM
I agree with you on this issue. I would add that if teachers at Virginia Tech were armed there may have only been a few deaths rather than 32. Other than the theatrical drama I don't see why people are so opposed to the idea of teachers carrying defensive weapons to protect our children with from all the whack-jobs out there.
As for our ability to protect ourselves from our government, that's a tough one to answer. Obviously we don't stand a chance with deer rifles against tanks, yet I'm not in supporting of tanks being available to the public (although it would be really COOL to ride around in one at a junk yard or something and blow stuff up). Tasker, try to look at it this way: If we're armed with deer rifles and shotguns the government would still have to use deadly force to control us, and that would look horrible to the rest of the world and we'd hardly be productive citizens. But unarmed, we have to go silently into the slave factories with no real way to resist our oppression. Besides, didn't you ever watch Red Dawn and get all excited and teary-eyed? Nuff said.
===============================================
"Tis a rare day when you and I agree, sir.
Thank you for writing.
Posted by: Dane Langston | April 23, 2007 11:02 AM
It's nice to see we agree on this one!
Posted by: Jack Lee | April 26, 2007 07:50 AM
I missed this discussion. Time for me to kick in.
The question about deer rifles taking out tanks is one one I frequently see. The answer is, its the wrong question!
Tanks don't operate alone. Tanks need fuel. Tanks need a steady supply of spare parts. Tankers need to eat. Food, fuel, spare parts come in trucks. Which can be taken out with a rifle.
Further, tanks can defeat another army, & tanks can destroy a city. But the subject isn't destruction, its subjugation.
Even a subjugated people need to eat, have the mail delivered, trash hauled away, etc. Tanks can do none of these things. These tasks require people who are not in tanks to do them. People with rifles can take out the people performing these tasks.
Also, the question presumes that ALL the tanks will be available for subjugation. The show biz term is "Will it play in Peoria?" Yes, an evil President can order tanks into Peoria, but can anyone really see AMERICAN soldiers mowing down fellow Americans? Laying waste to downtown Peoria? Even if some would follow such an order, can anyone really see them ALL doing so? Don't you think at least SOME will disobey? That would make it some tanks against some other tanks, which evens out the odds quite a bit, doesn't it?
In any event, "mere" rifles have another function. A man with a rifle is much better equipped mentally to resist subjugation than a man who doesn't have one. Even if he resists with things other than rifles, the fact that he has the rifle is the necessary first step to thinking that resistance is even possible.
Mulay
Posted by: Mulay L. Raisuli | May 18, 2007 08:21 AM