Okay, so I haven’t posted on my blog here in about
two-and-a-half years. For that, I apologize. I've been busier that I can
explain, and when I do have the time, I normally can’t think of any one
specific thing I want to write about. There’s so much going on that I’d
probably just be ranting about two or three things at a time.
Today, however, I do have something specific to write about;
something that I've debated lately, quite a bit.
I want to talk about guns. Yup. Guns. It’s what is all over
the news; anywhere you go, you hear something about them. So, I’m going to give
you as many facts as I can, and I’m going to add a bit of a bibliography at the
end, so you can check for yourselves. This will not at all be extensive. Also,
since this is a blog, I’m going to
throw in my opinion, with what I feel is common sense. I do want to point out
that I am not a “gun expert” by any means. What I have learned has been from my
own research. I beg you to please leave a comment with your opinions, and while I know I will not be able to respond to everyone, I will certainly try to answer the most common questions I receive.
So, first of all, I’m going to throw in the Second Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States of America. It is the focal point of
this whole debate… well… at least is should be…
“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.”
– Bill of Rights
My belief of what the Second Amendment means has changed.
When I was in high school, I believed that it was intended strictly for a militia,
which would be the National Guard, and that was that. I believed that because
my AP American Government teacher, who admitted he was pretty far left of
center, taught us that. His conclusion was that it didn't include individual
citizen. I actually believed that for a couple of years, until I researched it.
I wish I could cite all of the places I did my research, but seeing as I never
intended to write about it, I didn't keep track. Essentially, I now believe
that the Second Amendment is guaranteeing us the right to have a militia, as
well as the right of individuals to bear arms. Both, in fact, are “necessary to
the security of a free State.” The founders had just left a tyrannical monarchy,
and then had to fight them off because they had tried to stretch their power
across the sea, and implement their taxes and law on people who weren't being
represented. They knew that they wouldn't have won that war had their citizens
not been armed. There wouldn't have been a war. They set up our government with
a system of checks and balances so that none of the three branches of
government would rise above the other. They also realized that if that system
failed (though it would have to be severely distorted and destroyed first), the
government could then use the army to essentially enslave the people. That’s a
reason we have the Third Amendment, as well; to protect the people from the
government forcing itself on them.
There is a large paper written about militias and the
Constitution/Bill of Rights. A link to the full article is in the footnotes.
This is only a small excerpt (emphasis mine):
“Much of Madison's handiwork
underwent substantial editing in both the House and the Senate, but his militia
and arms proposal survived relatively unscathed. In the version finally passed
by the House, the order of the provisions was reversed: "A well regulated
militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed." Although the first
casualties of the House's editorial process were his preambles and explanations,
the militia statement and the right to arms guarantee both were retained. The House
apparently did not think that either portion of what would become the Second
Amendment was redundant; nor did the Senate, which emphasized the differing
natures of each provision.”[i]
Alright, I know that’s from a gun rights website, and that
will be an argument against my point, but my point remains.
And we’re moving right along.
The next issue I’d like to deal with is the defense against a
tyrannical government. Piers Morgan, in a recent interview/debate with Ben
Shapiro[ii], asks
“Which tyranny are you fearing?” after Shapiro defines the meaning behind the
Second Amendment. Shapiro then states that he fears a tyranny rising in our
country in “the next 50 to 100 years,” and “the fact that my grandparents and
great-grandparents in Europe didn't fear that, is why they’re now ashes in
Europe.” He repeats his view later on in the interview, and Morgan tells him
that he sounds “absurd.” I have also watched Morgan talk down to others that
have said the same thing. What Morgan, as well as many on the left, doesn't understand is that many countries have gone from democracy to dictatorship. Well,
either they don’t understand it, or don’t care. Time and time again,
governments have disarmed their people, and then taken control.[iii] It
has happened, and all it takes is a government that cares little of the rights
of the people, and a disarmed citizenry. History is the proof here, and the
fact that it’s being ignored, or “covered up,” is terrifying.
One argument against the defense from a tyrannical
government, is that no matter the arsenal any individual has, they won’t be able to compete against a government
military. I have two short, common sense (in my opinion) answers to this:
1.
Our
founders were severely out-gunned during the Revolutionary War, yet they won.
2.
The
right granted to us is not to guarantee a victory, but the right to do
everything in our power to protect ourselves.
Now I’ll move the guns themselves.
The definition of “assault weapon” is broad. Technically,
anything that is used to assault would then be an “assault weapon.” Those on
the left are basically defining anything that looks scary as an assault weapon.
Most people are in the dark when it comes to the truth about most of these
weapons that are being considered “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.” Both
of the definitions of these terms refer to weapons specifically made for the
military. The weapons they are trying to ban, however, are not made for the
military. Some of them are designed like those that the military uses, but they
are the civilian versions of such weapons. The automatic style weapons that the
military uses are already illegal for civilians to own.[iv] [I
know that the footnote is from “The Blaze” and that many will not give them
credit, but this story uses facts, and explains things much better than I can
with the little amount of time I have to type this blog entry. I trust that
anyone reading this is able to read with an open mind.] Also, many of the “scary
parts” of the AR or AK weapons, are simply cosmetic, or used to assist the
sports shooters (i.e. pistol grips for control; attachment rails for
flashlights, scopes, etc.)[v] I
know I didn't cover that entirely, and there are MANY more things to say about
this part, but I am quickly running out of time. So, I apologize.
 |
| Image from www.nrastore.com |
My fear is this: things will start being taken away a little
bit at a time, until we realize that we have none of the rights this country
was founded on. New York is a prime example of this. They already had strong
gun control. Magazines were limited to 10 rounds, very much like the proposal
by our President (among other things, this example just fits well with my point).
Recently, however, they've tightened down on the ban. Now, it’s a ban of more
than seven rounds. A little bit at a time, step-by-step until they’re gone. The
ban of more than seven rounds also makes a lot of handguns illegal, including
those that many have for personal protection.
I wish I could have been more exhaustive on this subject.
There are so many things I didn't touch on, such as the fact that the AR-15
takes the same caliber ammunition as many hunting rifles, and is used quite
often for hunting. My hope is that those that have made it through this will
also take the time to check out the links in the footnotes with an open mind.
[iii] http://home.comcast.net/~shooter2_indy/essays/paulharvey.html
*note: The essay at the linked address has facts in the beginning, and the
opinion of the writer follows.
No comments:
Post a Comment