Shall Not Be Infringed

"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." So says the second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The final four words are the most important: "Shall Not Be Infringed".

Infringed is a quite simple word, with a simple definition. From the dictionary itself:

1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.v.intr.

To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

Simply put, the government does not have the right to defeat, invalidate, or encroach upon the right to bear arms. According to news reports, and vice president Joe Biden, President Obama is planning on using an executive order to bypass the legal procedure to attack the Constitution.When will enough be enough? How many more rights will we lose to the government? People have lost personal accountability and want the government to provide everything for them, to protect them from everything, to become perfect little drones that listen to the media, watch reality shows, and spit on the bravery and courage that defined the creation of this country.

History has proven time and time again what happens to regulated citizens. Rome, Feudal Japan, Nazi Germany and many other such instances indicate when governments strongly regulate the freedoms of the people, the people revolt. The possible exception would be Nazi Germany, in which Hitler learned from history and used extensive propaganda and strict media control to boost his popularity, giving him unilateral control and the undying loyalty of the majority of its citizens.

Both sides of the gun control argument make extreme arguments for their cause, but in reality it boils down to the fact, its our right as American citizens to bear arms. I do at times find both arguments extreme, fear mongering, and quite frankly ignorant. The favorite one of the extreme gun rights advocates is that they will forciblly enter our homes and take our guns. This will more then likely not happen. To do so would require more manpower then the government could provide, would require those people to willingly violate the Constitution, and would require many more violations of personal rights. The majority of Americans are not so far gone to allow this kind of tactic.

The gun control supporters like to use the question of why would one need an assault rifle? They scream and laugh about how owning assault rifles would not protect us against the government, and that the only reason to have one is to kill large amounts of people quickly. To be honest, yes, having assault weapons would protect against a government gone rogue. Look at Vietnam and Afghanistan. In both cases the US had superior air, land, and sea powers, and neither time were they clear cut victors. If the government told the military to turn on its citizens, a large amount wouldn't. If the government tried to use drones, missiles, etc against American citizens, on American soil, hackers from across the world would do everything possible to tear down the infrastructure, hack the drones, disable grids, and level the playing field. Superior tech and fire power does not equal instant victor. Now, restrict guns and ammo and the field becomes more uneven. For the "kill lots of people argument", did people blame airplanes for 9/11, or the people? Did they blame rental trucks and fertilizer, or did they blame Timothy McVeigh? They blamed the people, not the tool used to commit the crime. A gun is a tool, used for hunting and protecting, for deterring crime and theft, for deterring rape and robbery. A car is a tool for transportation, but in the hands of a drunk driver, it becomes a lethal weapon with no target, no discrimination. If only making drinking and driving illegal would stop this rampage. Doctors are tools to heal and protect us when we are sick and vulnerable, yet an average of 98,000 people die every year to medical mistakes and incompetence. Should Dr's register with some board to determine proficiency? Or perhaps be forced to take training classes to ensure they are knowledgeable?

While this incidence of laws will probably be more restrictions, some may be extreme, this is potentially the first step. Think back to the Patriot Act. Message boards and Facebook were all on fire with the people who understood, then the outrage fizzled. Since then several more addendum's and laws have built on that original act, and we lose more rights. Perhaps this time we get a ban on certain types of guns, more background checks, clip size reduction, and increased ammo prices. We kick and moan, but nothing really comes of it. Next time, two, three or maybe 10 years later it builds on this banning any handgun but revolvers, eliminates high powered rifles unless registered and used only for hunting.

This is how freedoms erode. A nibble here, a bite there. It's not done overnight, it's not done all at once, but when we wake up one morning, we realize we have been duped, conned, and lost the precious freedoms we were given. We believed the propaganda we were given, we believed it was being done for our own good.

If you believe in your right to own guns without infringement, contact your local, state, and federal elected officials by phone and by email, and remind them they are to protect your rights as citizens of the United States, and to take any action they are legally able to, to continue to protect. And also remind them they are elected officials, they can be booted from office next election.