Posted on 10/09/2008 8:04:25 PM PDT by Chris DeWeese
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.
It seems that every election cycle since the media coined ‘assault weapon ban’ was first enacted has been ‘the most important election in the history of mankind’ according to us second amendment proponents. Rhetoric simply can’t be kept up so high before people become numb to it. The Supreme Court just declared the second amendment to be applicable to individuals, not states, so you may be asking yourself, “why are these guys still ranting about this? Can’t we move on already?”
Well, there are a couple reasons why we can’t move on. The first is that the Heller decision was not all encompassing. It only addressed a very specific violation of the second amendment and it left room for regulating where one can possess a firearm and also which types of firearms can be possessed. It also left room for registration and passing background and sanity checks. The second reason we are still ranting about the election has to do with mindsets and how a candidate views the authority of the federal government.
To elaborate on the first reason, we hear a lot of chatter about banning ‘assault weapons’. The problem with this is that the term 'assault weapon’ is really defined as a fully automatic weapon. While it is legal to own one of these in various states, someone who wants to own one must subject themselves to a lot of background scrutiny, continually register with the government, and also come up with the money to buy a fully automatic rifle. As I understand it, there is a cut off date on the manufacture of fully automatic rifles that one can own, and if you can find one for sale, they are very expensive – not to mention feeding them ammo!
The media and the gun-banning politicians expanded the definition of ‘assualt weapon’ arbitrarily. They basically defined it to be guns that look militaristic in application and could hold a lot of bullets. Of course, these would be the very guns the second amendment was meant to protect – arms for defense of self and of country. The framers did not put the second amendment in there so that we would be assured of the right to pursue animals through the forest. They put it in there because England tried to take all the colonists guns away and make them servants.
To add to this, the ‘assault weapon’ ban as well as the ridiculous rules on owning fully automatic rifles, do not apply to law enforcement. Yes, that’s right, if you work for the government as a LEO (law enforcement agent), you can possess a fully automatic rifle. We know this because the LEO’s lose one or two every so often and it gets reported in the news. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t see anything in the second amendment to indicate that one’s occupation gives one more rights than another. So, hear this loud and clear America, the politicians are OK with their security details protecting them with rifles that they do not think you and I should own. This would be a direct return to how the redcoats were treating the colonists.
Now, we need to look at why someone other than a LEO would want to own a rifle that holds a lot of bullets and could have a militaristic application. The answer is simple – Katrina. In the wake of hurricane Katrina, evil men acquired weapons and used them against victims of that hurricane. Can you imagine trying to defend your household against 4 or 5 marauding criminals armed only with a 4 shot lever action deer rifle? Can you imagine trudging through a wasteland not knowing what lurks around the next corner, trying to find a Red Cross relief area with no means to defend yourself from bad men or the random alligator?
For years, folks who think like I do were thought to be paranoid. “Oh, they’ll never try to take your guns”, we’re told, “you’re just paranoid”. Well, just because we are paranoid, that doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get us! Ray Nagin ordered his police to disarm the populace after Katrina. Yes, that’s right, when the people needed their arms the most to defend themselves, their families, and their neighbors, the Mayor of New Orleans ordered his police, who were already better armed than the populace since they can own fully automatic weapons, to disarm the law abiding citizenry who were already being assaulted by criminals. All of our paranoid fears came together in one perfect storm.
This leads me in to the mindset issue. Ray Nagin fears his constituents. Ray Nagin and all the politicians who advocate ANY type of gun ban simply do not think we sheeple ought to be able to protect ourselves the way that they get to be protected by their million dollar security details. This is a very big problem in my book.
If we look at the devolving of America (unless you are a 'progressive' and like the way things are going), there are a couple of threads we can follow to the start of this downward trend. America, specifically the United States, was originally founded upon individual, God given, rights and liberties. Self reliance was the order of the day. Capitalism and self-reliance go hand in hand. We are morphing into a socialistic nation where reliance on government is the rule of the day. We are very quickly moving toward a society based on the collective and doing what is best for the nation, vice doing what is best for you, your family, and your God while being united through commonalities. ‘The State’ is now supposed to protect us from everything. Remember, Katrina, where a whole lot of people were crying about FEMA not coming to save them, never minding that they were told to evacuate in plenty of time to save them from having to sit on their rooftops waiting for a ride from a helicopter? Contrast this to the floods along the Mississippi river, where people are still ‘throw-backs’ to a more innocent time. These people banded together and tried to save their towns with shovels and sand. Some of these people watched their own houses get overwhelmed but stayed to try to save a stranger’s house. Remember back to the ice storm here in KC a few years ago and how people banded together to help each other. Remember how Ike hit Texas and people evacuated properly. These three disasters occurred where people own firearms in abundance, yet nobody ever really needed them. Why? Because we have the right mindset. We’re not prone to exploit bad times to try to steal or murder or rape. Politicians and the police are not our enemy, they are our friends. Society is our friend. The government, well, we don’t look to that as our saviour, we look to our God for that and for ourselves and our neighbors to band together in tough times.
I think the mindset issue is the most important these days. The government is failing to do its job right and left. The financial markets are in turmoil. Regardless of who gets elected, times are going to be tougher ahead of us than they were behind us. We need representation in the White House who will lead us through these times so that we come out on the other side at least as free as we are going in. We do not need a representative in the White House who hails from one of the most restrictive cities in the world in regards to gun rights and liberty in general. We do not need a representative in the White House who embraces socialism and the ‘cradle to grave’ mentality.
Most importantly, we must remember that gun-banning politicians like Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Nanci Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and company really, really want another assault weapon ban. The state of California already has one and it made people instant criminals if they didn't get their newly defined 'assault weapons' out of the state. Our only chance to stave off this onslaught is to vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin. We need to remember that Joe Biden was an author of the assault weapons ban. We need to remember where Barack Obama hails from and who he will be beholden to if he is elected. We need to vote for McCain and hope he stand firms and does not reach across the aisle. Because, if we vote for Obama, the second amendment has no hope.
I wrote this because of a conversation I was having with some folks on another site who don’t see Obama as a threat to gun owners. I thought I would share it here at FR to remind us why we have to do what it is we have to do on November 4th.
That is why the gun control nuts are still out their ginning up anti-gun rhetoric and hate for anyone who owns them.
bump
Whoa, the font is tiny.
That's what I get for copying a source.... I would be cool if a mod wanted to get in there and beef it up a little.
Thomas Jefferson said that where the government fear the people, there is liberty where the people fear the government, there is tyranny. A good healthy dose of fear by the government is always a good thing. That starts with peoples ability to be free to speak their minds and own guns.
Hit Ctrl and spin the scroll wheel on your mouse and you can change the font size (In IE atleast)
Bump to a good thread...
It works for Firefox as well.
This is a very appropriate and very articulately written article. Thank you! May I distribute it?
What site is that, moronicus.com?
Obama was a director of the Joyce Foundation - a DIRECTOR, not a member, not an employee, but a policy-making DIRECTOR! The Joyce Foundation is one of the single most anti-gun organizations in the country - moreso than even the Brady Bunch.
Prior to June's Heller decision, Obama never met a gun that he liked - every single statement of his regarding guns was that they need to be banned or severely restricted.
Now that the guy is facing a national audience for the first time, he suddenly discovers that the 2nd means something? I call BS. Even if he can't outright ban them, he can eliminate all imports of guns, parts and ammo with the stroke of a pen (and I believe he will). He can direct the Pentagon to have exclusive contracts with many gun and ammo manufacturers - sell to Uncle only, or you don't get the next contract - and then where are we supposed to get guns & ammo & components? He can also let the BATFE loose, driving even more FFLs out of business and entrapping sufficient numbers of people to effectively kill gun shows, and he can probably persuade an anti-gun Congress to pass new laws making felons out of several tens of millions of people (who are thus inelibible to own guns, or to vote for that matter).
Regarding that last matter, I've found this to be a prescient quote:
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We WANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
But don't worry, our guns will be safe - just ask the folks at moronicus.com.
Sure! Wherever you think it can to some good!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2102343/posts?q=1&;page=1
This is what happens when you must ASK the government before you exercise your Rights. When you must PROVE you are not a criminal before being allowed to exercise them...
ping
I read that article, and I agree. Of course, that is "just" the right/privilege to carry, not to own. Most people don't carry, so most don't care. You, I, and a bunch of others do and therefore understand the issue better, and we can also see beyond the end of our noses to the next step, which is "Sheriff begins round-up of guns" or something similar. Of course, if'n they try THAT one, they ought to be updating their wills and paying up their insurance policies first, and also bring along a bunch of body bags for themselves. That is, BTW, merely an observation, not a threat.
Pong
If America votes for socialism, that is, elects Obama, we’ll know we’re far down the road to serfdom.
Serfs don’t care about freedom, just about getting free stuff from the goobermint.
Her biggest concern (after we went through all the pleasantries) was: "How do we get guns away from bad people?" I did my best allay her fear of gun owners and basically told her that we have to be prepared to fight back against 'bad people'.
I told her good gun owners train for situations that might arise such that they act in a way to minimize injury to innocents while engaging a threat. And, that they practice enough so that when an event occurs, more attention can be placed on taking action, rather than, "how does this thing work?"
She seemed open-minded and I tried my best not to come off as a 'gun nut' and feel I succeeded in that sense. However, the things (responses) that came to mind after we parted were overwhelming. I hope she left knowing that not everyone who owns a gun is a 'bad' person, because most people have been programmed that way, and I thanked her for the conversation (there was more to it, but I won't bore you with it).
So, how to handle the question of getting guns out of the hands of the bad guys? I have my thoughts- anyone can put theirs up for consideration. Thanks.
Free Cheese!
Actually they didn't expand it, they pulled it out of where the sun don't shine. Then they expanded it in some places, like California.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.