Posted on 10/30/2023 10:43:55 AM PDT by jagusafr
Daughter #2, while she wants to learn to handle a handgun safely, said yesterday, "I do think it should be harder for people to buy guns." I didn't pound on 2A because that's not what works with her. Any suggestions on sources for her to get comfortable with "shall not be infringed"?
Point out the fact that if the Israeli’s had guns (which they did until they were taken away just a few years ago) the attack by Hamas would not have happened. Hamas knew they were defenseless.
If Hamas attacked and the Israeli’s were armed, they would’ve been picking off their sorry asses one by one out the window, instead of pointing a cell phone at them.
Japan would have attacked the US in WWll mainland if weren’t for the fact “there will be a gun behind every blade of grass”.
Show her, in detail, what happened in Israel on 10/7. |
And lets not forget what happened to Australia during Covid. Because citizens there voluntarily voted to surrender their weapons back in the 90's, they became victims of the state and were locked down with thousands held in Concentration Camps
“It should not be harder for us to defend ourselves. As a woman you are smaller, weaker, and slower then most predators. You have a right to self defense.”
Exactly - link it to the other GOD GIVEN rights of freedom and free will. Given to EVERY PERSON on planet earth. Our Constitution only affirms those God-given rights, it does not provide them.
In the decision narrative the court described the reasoning used by the state Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of the law as "frivolous".
So politicians *and* judges in my state hold frivolous attitudes toward a resident's right to keep arms *and* to bear arms.
Here’s a history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:
1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.
1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.
[Editor: You can argue about the numbers, but the point here is that disarmed citizens are vulnerable, and that there are many historical examples of disarmed citizens being killed and oppressed by their own government. The excuse given by authorities that they need to take guns away from citizens in order to lower crime rates is not supported by facts. Even if a government does not turn on its own citizens after disarming them, people are less safe – because unarmed citizens are easy targets to criminals. Over and over again, it has been clearly shown that taking guns away from citizens does not lead to a decrease in crime but rather a dramatic increase.]
Australia has disarmed it’s citizens, and a year later the homicide rate in the largest province is up 300%. The burglaries of seniors is “dramatically” up.
I guess the criminals did not turn their weapons in. Only the innocent law abiding citizens turned in weapons.
In US cities with the highest crime rates, taking guns away from the citizens has not lowered the homicide rate. All it has done is to make it easier for criminals to operate.
The 2nd amendment is not about duck hunting, or deer hunting. It is about having the ability and the right to defend oneself and your family. It doesn’t matter if that threat is a burglar, or the Federal Government. A disarmed population is fair game for any president who may be aspiring to become a dictator. Having its citizens armed was the plain and simple intent of the founding fathers of our country.
Focus instead on the "necessary to the security of a free state" part.
Here are some passages from The Federalist Papers that might help.
James Madison, Federalist #46:
But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole...That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism...
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger...
To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties...
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of...
Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
This link is a deeper dive of mine into Federalist #46 that discusses the separation of state governments from the federal government and the dangers of the federal government subsuming the state governments. This the real danger to "the security of a free state."
-PJ
Have her read your post and the replies, then discuss each with her.
Another thing you could do is show her the Supreme ruled that police do not have to protect you. They can watch you die before moving in to arrest the perp.
Also, you could show her videos of people standing around while watching somebody get harmed, because nobody wants to get hurt being the hero.
Is this hypothetical daughter old enough to worry about being able to defend herself against rape?
You would only be able to shake your head and say: “Come over here and sit down. We need to talk.”
A picture is worth a thousand words
Brooklyn Bridge.
I am glad the young lady is open to ifrearms use and safety instrucyion. I suggest discussing some ramifications of “making it harder to buy guns”.
Rich and educated people can afford to hire lawyers, pay high application/license fees, make multiple trips to government offices, etc. They are also more likely to have connections with politians, police, and sheriffs. Poor people often lack those resources. So “making it harder” discriminates based on wealth and education levels. It also opens the door to race and politics entering the picture.
When women find themselves being abused or stalked by violent men, will “making it harder” for such women to acquire a firearm quickly make them safer? Denying access to a means of self defense to someone facing imminent threat of beatings, rape, or murder robs women of independence and is downright cruel.
Also from the DCM (Director of Civilian Marksmanship) and the Army would ship you one. (I got an M1 Carbine for $20.00.)
I know - that’s my point, the left/liberal/woke-istans are trying to cut into EVERY right we have as a “free” people.
Tell her it’s almost inevitable that it’ll be repealed before she’s old.
Describe roving bands of criminals and what they do.
Start the exercise of where to go, with whom, and what to do.
I just purchased one last week and and there were numerous safety forms I had to read, attest to and sign leading up to the back ground check.
It was about 45 minutes of reading and signing stupid crap.
After all was said and done and was able to walk out of Cabela's with the gun and go home, I then had to go out of my way to drop off the gun registration at the local sheriff's dept.
Advantages to them being all concentrated like that.
Here’s another link that details the horrors of insane asylums.
No Kidding.
That, however, looks like a target-rich environment for the Israelis, should they decide to take it.
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.