I have, for years, been listening to, and reading the rants
and tirades of the Totalitarian/Monarchist faction of American politics (aka
the Left), about the 2nd Amendment. They rarely let the actions of a
mentally unstable person, or Islamist Jihadist (did I repeat myself?) go by
without blaming the tool, and not the perpetrator. It is never the fact that
the person was unstable, it is always the fact that he/she could get a gun… Of
course there have been mass killings all over the world where the perpetrator
didn’t use or have access to firearms. They used swords, knives, and explosives.
Further, in countries like France, that have no legal private ownership of
firearms and no legal way to purchase them, Jihadists still find ways to get
firearms and explosives.
The current administration would have you believe that guns
sales in the US also are responsible for Mexican Drug Cartel gun violence. They
even instructed Gun shops in the US sell guns to Cartel front men so they could
have proof (operation Fast and Furious, it was supposed to trace weapons). The Cartels
import hand grenades and rocket launchers from China, but they, for some reason,
would rather pay $1600.00 for a semi-auto American firearm, rather than pay
$200.00 for a fully automatic AK47. Makes Perfect sense.
Therefore they wish you to believe that if Firearms were
made illegal, that no Jihadist would be able to get a fully automatic AK47 from
Mexico. Miraculously restricting law abiding citizens from owning firearms, or
a class of firearms, will suddenly make all of the Jihadists, that the current
administration has allowed into the US (and the ones sneaking across the
southern border from Mexico) stop killing Americans.
But BigMan, the 2nd Amendment is archaic, it meant that
citizens could own Muskets for hunting and protection from abused Native
Americans, they weren’t supposed to be military grade weapons. Anyway they
couldn’t have foreseen the advance in weapons that have occurred in that last
200 years!!
Let’s respond to these statements seriatim:-
The 2nd
Amendment is archaic, it meant that citizens could own Muskets for hunting and
protection from abused Native Americans, they weren’t supposed to be military grade
weapons.
Not so fast there Bucky, reading the Federalist Papers and
other writings of the founders, it is clear that the 2nd Amendment
was about 2 things:
1.
Free men (in this case it means women too) have
a god given or natural right to self-protection. In fact one of the symbols of a free man in
the UK and Europe for Centuries prior to the American Revolution was the
ability to own weapons. In fact the yeoman of England who could not afford
weapons nor had the “Right” to own weapons became proficient with the Quarter Staff
(think Robin and little John’s meeting on the log bridge). Therefore the possession
of Arms is a God given or Natural Right that existed prior to the Constitution
being written. That is the meaning of “The Right….Shall not be abridged.
2.
The Right had absolutely nothing to do with
hunting, it was to protect yourself from attacks from indigenous people and
most importantly, the Government. One of the lessons of the Revolution was that
an armed populace could stand up to an oppressive Government. By the way, the
founders defined the militia as “every abled bodied citizen between the ages of
16 and 60”. So if you fit that description, you are in the militia. Not the
National Guard.
Well it didn’t include military grade weapons
like an “Assault Rifle” like the AR-15!! Its name says it all, Assault Rifle
15!!
Actually, the colonists had, what were at the time, not only
military grade weapons, they were actually better than the military grade
weapons that the British Soldiers had. The American Long Rifle (they weren’t
Muskets, Rifles weren’t considered Muskets until the 19th Century,
when Muskets began to be rifled) was more accurate, and accurate from a longer distance
than the smooth bore Muskets used by the British. So yes the 2nd Amendment
did mean that citizens should and could own military grade weapons.
Also the name “Assault Rifle” is a pejorative, invented by
the Totalitarians to describe a semi-auto firearm that “LOOKS” like a military
grade rifle. The first rifle ever to be described as an Assault Rifle was the
MP-44/Sturmgewehr invented by the leftist
Totalitarian-Light Regime that ruled Germany in the 30’s-40’s, the NAZIs. No
American military weapon has ever been called an “Assault Rifle”. Further, the
name “AR-15” doesn’t stand for “Assault Rifle 15”, it stands for “Armalite
Rifle, model 15”. AR-15 has become the name of any semi-auto, civilian rifle,
based on the Armalite design, which uses direct gas impingement to cycle the
bolt.
In fact here is a
photo of a Ruger 10-22 semi-auto rifle (.22 Cal). It is based on the M1 Garand
and M14 actions. It doesn’t use direct gas impingement, the gas instead actuates
a transfer bar that then cycles the bolt. Ruger’s Mini-14 and Mini-30 work in
the same manner. The rifle at the top of the photo is a standard 10-22, the
bottom has an aftermarket stock, flash suppressor, bi-pod, and magazine. The
mechanism hasn’t changed. If there weren’t any labels on the photo, and you
asked a Totalitarian to pick out the “Assault Rifle”, they would select the
bottom picture. As I said, the only difference is cosmetic… The magazine (it’s
NOT a clip) will work with either of the configurations.
Anyway they couldn’t
have foreseen the advance in weapons that have occurred in that last 200
years!!
They also couldn’t have foreseen the advances in
communications. At the time of the American Revolution, mass communication was
through Newspapers, pamphlets and handbills. Does that mean that Free Speech
should be restricted to Newspapers, pamphlets and handbills? That Televison,
Radio, and the Internet should have restricted speech? DON’T ANSWER THAT TOTALITARIANS!!!
You also want to restrict any speech that you don’t agree with. You have even
suggested that those who don’t believe in Anthropomorphic Global Warming,
excuse me, since there has been no warming in 20 years, Climate Change, should
be jailed. So you actually don’t believe in the Bill Of Rights at all unless it
furthers your agenda. Like Totalitarians pleading the 5th (the right
to not self-incriminate). Also the attacks on political speech that
Totalitarians do not agree with. That is why the Obama administration got away
with something that even Richard Nixon couldn’t do. Use the IRS to attack and silence
its’ enemies. Who just so happened to be Conservative, Libertarian and Tea party
groups.
Well, there should be
some restrictions!! After all you can’t own a Nuclear Bomb or a Tank!!
**Sigh** What could I possibly do with a Nuclear Bomb? I
guess technically we should be allowed to own one, but to what purpose? It’s
not like I can go the Range and practice shooting it. By the way, my going to
the range with any rifle or hand gun for practice, doesn’t affect the rights of
anyone else. Using a Nuclear Bomb would ruin the day of thousands or even
millions of people.
As for owning a tank? Why yes I can, if I have the money to
purchase and maintain it. Not only that, I can also equip it with Machine guns
(fully automatic weapons that will fire as long as the trigger/paddles are
depressed). All I would have to do is pass a back ground check (as I would for
the purchase of any firearm), and pay the tax stamp. The main gun would have to
be disabled, but even if it weren’t ammo would be expensive..
Well what about common
sense gun control? Like universal background checks, closing the gun show loop
hole, and registering your guns?
What may seem common sense to you makes no sense to me.
Universal Background checks means that if my father wants to give me a firearm,
or I wish to give one to my children, they have to pass a background check.
Why? Doesn’t my father know me and don’t I know my children? I would also have
to require a friend to pass a back ground check prior to selling/giving him/her
a firearm. Why? Is my judgement that bad? If so, I wouldn’t have passed the
multiple background checks I have had to go through. I wouldn’t sell/give a firearm to someone I
didn’t know or trust in the first place. A person that would probably didn’t
get it legally, and they don’t obey other laws.
As for the “Gun show loophole”, I have yet to go to a gun
show where back ground checks weren’t required or available. I have heard that
they exist, but I have as of yet never been to one, and I have attended a lot of
gun shows.
As for registering any guns I may own? Not going to happen.
The only reason for registration is so that Law enforcement has a list of who
owns guns, and what they own, in order to confiscate them. It has been done in
the UK, Australia, NAZI Germany, and New Orleans LA USA (NOLA) after Hurricane
Katrina.
In NOLA, the Law abiding citizens were disarmed and the
thugs still had weapons. The brave police officers even tackled a scary
octogenarian woman who wouldn’t turn in a pistol her late husband left her..
Further the supreme court of the US has ruled that a
criminal can’t be prosecuted for not registering a firearm. Since it is illegal
for them to own one in the first place, it would be against their 5th
Amendment right to not self-incriminate, to register, or tell the Police, that
they have a gun. So registration and a criminal punishment for failure to do
so, would, like all Gun Control measures, only affect the law abiding. By
definition, criminals, or Jihadists, wishing to do harm to people, will do whatever
they want no matter what the law is. They will procure weapons, and they will
continue to commit crimes and violence, because that is what they do. After
all, murder is already illegal..
OK, so what is your solution?
Every one go around armed like in the Wild West?
First, I would get rid of “Gun-Free Zones”. They are laughable.
Do you think that a Jihadist, bent on shooting a lot of infidels, will walk up
and see a “Gun-Free Zone” sign and just say “Damn” and walk away? Actually
almost all of the mass shootings in the US over the last 20 years have been exclusively
in “Gun-Free Zones”. Why? Because they are sure that nobody will shoot back.
Everyone doesn’t have to be armed, (everyone wasn’t armed in
the old west contrary to what Hollywood shows) if there was one person that was
armed at any of these shootings, they could have stopped them. It has happened
multiple times in multiple locations, but since there wasn’t a sexy body count,
and an armed citizen or off duty Police officer stopped it, it barely makes the
24 hr. news cycle and is quickly forgotten.
We will not be able to stop the mentally ill or the
Jihadists (did I repeat myself again?), from killing people, we may stop them
from doing as much damage as they want. We won’t stop them by restricting law
abiding American’s civil rights. None of the laws proposed by the Totalitarians
would have prevented the shootings.
Islam, Sharia, and mental healthcare is the problem, not the
tools that the perpetrators use.
"Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is
the queen of personal weapons.
The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of
power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It
is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies
on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of
resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be
tyrannized.
The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own.
Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more
good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of
righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men
with rifles."
Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
"Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is
the queen of personal weapons.
The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of
power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It
is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies
on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of
resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be
tyrannized.
The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own.
Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more
good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of
righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men
with rifles."
Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
No comments:
Post a Comment