Posted on 09/09/2004 10:26:29 PM PDT by risk
Ken Schram's Commentary: The NRA And Political Weasels
September 9, 2004
By Ken Schram
SEATTLE - Face it, if the NRA had its way, people would be able to own machine guns.
And the more fanatical NRA members would be yammering about how the 2nd Amendment allows it.
At the moment however, all the NRA can do is kill an assault weapons ban that a vast majority of Americans think is necessary and worthwhile.
In fact, most congressional Republicans and Democrats also believe the weapons ban should be extended, but they're political weasels.
They've allowed the NRA to intimidate them into ignoring what the nation needs, in favor of what the NRA wants.
Contrary to popular belief, I support the 2nd Amendment.
What I don't support is the NRA's iron-fisted labeling of every reasonable effort to curb gun violence as a diabolical plot to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.
By any and all measures, the ban on semi-automatic assault rifles -- along with magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition -- has had a positive impact in the 10 years since it was passed.
But the NRA doesn't care.
The NRA's fantasy is that extending this particular ban would lead to bans on other guns -- "The Boogeyman will getcha" argument.
The NRA has gone from influencing government, to controlling it.
Some say they can live with that.
But how many others will die because of it?
Want to share your thoughts with Ken Schram? You can e-mail him at kenschram@komo4news.com
Your first sentence suffers from the limitations expressed in your second sentence.
The 2A is there to allow citizens to defend themselves, period. Whether from foreign invasion, local goblins and perps, or from the Armed Forces of Janet Reno and Hildebeeste.
Most excellent indeed...
Thanks for correcting my omission. The second amendment addresses a fundamental human right: self-defense from all threats, be they foreign, domestic; or be they criminal, military, or political. There must be no compromise on any of these principle justifications for remaining armed. No retreat!
Thanks for the ping.
The progress we are making in restoring the Second Amemndemnt has to be demoralizing to the left. And the best part about it is that they know that if they resist the way they want to, they will be voted out of power in most of America.
They are still safe in the liberal strongholds, for now, but are getting worried as freedom advances.
My email to him:
Ken, you said:
"By any and all measures, the ban on semi-automatic assault rifles -- along with magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition -- has had a positive impact in the 10 years since it was passed."
Gee, even the sponsors of the bill the last time and this time have made no such claims. The government statistics show no such impact. As a matter of fact, it would have been difficult to have any impact since this type of firearm is rarely used to commit a crime.
So please, don't make statements that advance your perverted definition of the 2nd Amendment without providing proof or you look like the weasel.
Mark
Over time, I anticipate the safety of their liberal strongholds will diminish dramatically. Since most of these strongholds are cities, as illegal immigration and suicidal social policy continues to coddle criminals and bring the bloody-handed lawlessness of the third world to their doorsteps, they will find themselves more and more being reaped like a bitter harvest, with a police force too overwhelmed to respond adequately and a populace with no means of defending themselves. This will also be accelerated as the remaining people who think as "red America" does continue to abandon these areas.
God help them, because I will not. And as they have turned away from God, morality and sanity, I wouldn't be counting on His help either.
Just my view from the saddle,
First of all, I don't believe that the right has have sole claim to the title of "liberty defenders" in our country. CFR had widespread bipartisan support. Some conservatives are just as confused about the first amendment as liberals are about the second. Furthermore, some RINOs are avid gun control advocates, while a few hardy Democrats have been staunch second amendment defenders. True defense of liberty is always a challenge, and usually requires deeper thinking and self-discipline than most are willing to commit. The simple solutions are rarely what the founding fathers had in mind. Disarming the populace to defend it against gun violence is one such "simple" solution that isn't a solution at all.
Second, armed citizens should always be a reassurance rather than a threat to their neighbors. But are we seen as keeping their safety in the highest regard? I would hope so, but it isn't always the case. Our success as a nation has made the need for everyone to remain armed less critical than was at the case at time of our nation's founding. Remaining unarmed is now a viable alternative in most areas of the country. Once again, explaining the need for a second amendment has become less of a clear-cut need for personal defense (which is the easiest way to encourage people to become second amendment supporters) and more of an exercise in teaching history. We can still outline a future in which Americans give up their responsibility for personal and community defense of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We can argue that our nation's viability will not last long after we finally make that choice. History would bear out that argument.
But argue we must. In a nation with such economic prosperity of ours, the pen is far mightier than the sword. Our obligation as loyalists and patriots is to do the explaining as often as it takes. Once we have painted a clear picture in the minds of our fellow citizens of how their prosperity and personal safety depends on victories obtained and defended by firearms, many will stand by us even when they personally do not feel a need to arm themselves.
Patrick Henry warned during the Virginia Ratifying Convention debates over adoption of the present Constitution:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
Force. It's all that tyrants understand, and in the hands of principled, upright citizens it serves as a quiet, understated deterrence against the unthinkable. Today, we make our case with words so that we need not mention the force that backs them. But we will defend our rights. But our goal in a more sophisticated society where violence is rare should be to reassure and educate our fellow citizens. They are are continually told that the second amendment is a dangerous anachronism that isn't protected at the state level. We need to prove to them that as individual gun owners, we are safe, responsible, and on their side, just like the collective militias were at the founding of our country.
Uh huh, they can! Whatcher point?
And the more fanatical NRA members would be yammering about how the 2nd Amendment allows it.
Sheesh! A friggin' genius! It does.
Any questions?
SEC. 201. INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
In interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States, a court of the United States may not rely upon any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than the constitutional law and English common law.
>>the second amendment is all about offering the Constitution a reset button<<
Should have a couple of bullet holes in that.
Stay safe !
You too, bro.
Speaking of saddles, I like this one.
And what's wrong with that? It's part of our God-given rights under the Second Amendment.
But how many others will die because of it? (Not renewing the ban)
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.