American Gun Grabbers
The Bill of Rights
How Gun Rights Started
It's good to start with a little bit of historical background on the issue at hand- gun control.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
The founding fathers of the united states of America believed in a strong presence of well armed, well educated people. They had been forbidden in occupied colonial America during the Revolutionary War from carrying or owning weapons. This left them defenceless from criminals. After years of his Majesty sending convicts to them, there were many lawless people there. Being able to protect yourself from the villains was a necessity. Therefore after the war, people wanted that right.
There were other reasons to bear arms as well. The tyrannical previous government could do whatever it wanted. It could enter a home with no warrant, take people with no just cause, hold them with no trial, and even execute them. Another reason they wanted weapons was for their protection from tyrants.
One more reason the early Americans wished for weapons was to hunt and foul. In times of low crop or livestock yield, if they couldn't hunt they didn't eat. This is a good reason that anyone who wishes to feed their family understands.
After all those reasons were debated, and much discussion was done by the new government, the second article of amendment to the constitution for the united states of America was ratified along with nine others. They are now commonly called the "Bill of Rights." Amendment II states verbatim:
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.
How Gun Rights Now Stand
In modern times, the legislature of the United States, the various states, and a multitude of cities, townships, municipalities, and so forth have tried to chip away at these rights. From "the Brady Bill" named after a man who was shot during the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt, to Dianne Feinstein constantly introducing bills to inhibit the use, sale, and even ownership of weapons, gun owners have been bombarded by attempts to remove their rights.
Colfax avenue centred in Denver Colorado runs through Golden, Wheat ridge, Denver and Aurora. In fact, it is the longest running avenue in the United states. If you drive down that avenue, you must as you pass through the different municipalities, put your weapon in the glove box, then at the city limits of another put it in the trunk, and yet another, put the weapon on the seat in plain view. This is quite confusing, yet designed to get people to either not exercise their right to carry, or get convicted of a gun charge and actually have that right revoked. The tricks these lawmakers use does not end there.
Now many newer liberal supreme court justices are calling the constitution and the bill of rights a "living breathing document" which means it may be interpreted loosely, and it's interpretation can be changed from time to time. More of the conservative justices believe the documents written should be interpreted with the language as it was used and understood at the time.
By the liberal justices' logic, by simply changing the definition of a word, or by using a newer dictionary, the words "shall not be infringed" could now mean "may sometimes be infringed." or even "must always be infringed."
In the wake of the Batman shooting, the Sandy Hook shooting and many others, we are left with a mainstream media that now keeps repeating the mantras "We need to have this conversation [about gun bans]," "it's time to have the conversation [about gun bans]," and when any opposing guest on their shows say "No, we're not giving up our guns." They say "You're a lunatic, What's wrong with you? We're just trying to have a conversation."
Why Not Just Ban Them?
Not many conservatives are willing to ask that question. That much is true. Yet not many liberals are asking that question either. They are just shouting "Ban them!" I will answer that question with extremely simple third grade logic.
I'm not going to give you a list of news stories where a home invader was shot by a father protecting his kids, a mother doing the same, or an off duty cop warding off a carjacker. I realize you people reading this have better things to do than sift through 10,000 examples I can find on Google alone. My argument has more to do with government than it does with criminals.
Joseph Stalin banned guns and killed anyone who had one. The people handed them over as in response to that. How many of his own citizens did he kill soon afterwards? I think It's around 20 million. That much is history.
Mao Tse Tung became dictator then ordered his communist China subjects to hand over their guns or be killed. How many people did he kill soon after the people complied? I think it was around 50 million. That much is history.
Adolph Hitler- well, you know the drill. He took all the guns then ordered the Jew, the Gypsy, the gay, and anyone who disagreed with him into the oven. Do you see a pattern here?
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's only a matter of time before the guns are gone, and a power hungry regime (fully armed of course) will take over and push us into the oven, or the fema camps. Who knows?
Which brings me to my final thoughts on this subject. The courts have ruled several times, up one side and down the other, that the government has no duty to protect you- AT ALL! From cops showing up late to 911 calls and the person dies and a lawsuit ensues, to social services being told of an abusive parent, doing nothing, and the child gets hurt really bad and the other family members sue, the courts rule the government has no duty to protect you. Yet I find it interesting that when people take it upon themselves to protect themselves and their families, the legislators want to make it as difficult as possible to protect yourself.
More by this Author
An old traditional court of common law, though antiquated can still have modern uses. Is this dinosour still used? If so How? This is a brief look at one very complicated instrument of law revolving around the concept...
The full view of Hydrogen Good news is that it ships with many distributions like 64studio and Medibuntu. That means the live cd will run it, and you won't have to go through installing a new operating system just to...
In my research for common law remedies of which I wrote a hub about, I've come across a movement known as the Freeman-on-the-land. I hadn't heard the term in over a decade. It has been since I knew a fellow who had...
No comments yet.