Mar 25 2009
What Does It Mean To YOU?
The right to bear arms, the most fundamental right we have after the freedom of speech is in danger of being defiled by our government. How can we as American sit by and allow our government to take more and more of our rights away from us?
Our constitution clearly states in the second amendment that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. ”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.”
The founding fathers put this amendment in the constitution to preserve the freedom of the people. They knew what government tyranny looked and felt like. They did not want to see it happen again after they fought and died for their freedom.
The right to bear arms is vital to the stability of our vibrant democracy because it puts power in the hands of the many, instead of a privileged few. In order to remain a free state people need to be empowered with the ability to defend themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Without this power in the hands of the people, government can abuse the rights of anyone as they see fit because they are powerless to fight back. Gun ownership in this day in age is more essential than ever given the state of the union. Government has become increasingly more belligerent and imperial in nature.
There are clear signs of this, unauthorized wars, occupation, domestic wire tapping, suspension of habeas corpus, spending trillions of dollars of taxpayers money… The list goes on and on but the signs are there.
I fear with appointment of Attorney General Eric Holder, our second amendment rights will be usurped by the government. Holder is on record as saying that he is for a permanent ban on “military style” assault weapons and “cop killer” bullets. For those who don’t know what a “military style” assault weapon is, it is a semi-automatic rifle derived from assault weapons.
Weapons sold to civilians are not true “assault” weapons because they are not automatic. I believe that there is a motive behind their desire to permanently ban these types of weapons and it is not because they concerned about “public safety”.
I say this because there have been studies that have shown that the assault weapon ban from 1994-2004 had little or no effect on crime rates and were rarely used in violent crimes. This being said, why else would the government want to take away our gun ownership rights?
For one reason alone CONTROL. The government has a goal, and that is to keep the people weak so we can’t fight back if the moment ever arised. The permanent banning of “assault” weapons is merely a stepping stone to the goal of banning all guns in America. Without guns, people are defenseless against tyranny in all it forms.
So do not believe our government when they say that it is for our own good. Remember :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.
The Bill of Rights also claims that a black man is equal to three-fourths of a white man. The whole reason they’re called “amendments” is because they can be amended.
And if we did end up living in an Orwellian dystopia, you can be sure that information would be the strongest weapon we have. It wasn’t an armed mob with AK-47s that took down the Berlin wall — it was the fax machine.
But I’m really just playing devil’s advocate here. I’ve been less passionate about banning assault weapons lately since the only thing people are buying now are guns, alcohol, and video games.
AZ,
Nah, brah, sorry, the militia was not there to defend against the government but rather like the national guard local reserves, ergo they had to be allowed to keep weapons. The idea that we can use guns to fight our government is absurd. We only have guns the government has fighter jets, try to be rational. Bill_finger is correct, information is the weapon, that and solidarity of the masses, the only way we can protect ourselves from a repressive government is with organized educated masses who resist non-violently. Sure guns are fun toys but you saw how much they helped at Ruby Ridge, or in Waco. The myth of using guns to defend against the government is an out dated idea. Besides the amendment says “arms” not guns, arms include nuclear weapons and stinger missiles; I don’t want my neighbor to have a nuclear weapon. I mean I could be trusted with one but not him. There will always be arms control and the fear of government taking your gun is absurd this is a nation in love with guns. The idea of defending yourself from the government with guns is a right wing scare tactic. The only way the government is going to go after guns in general is if people en mass try to use their guns against the government then they will come get them. And they will succeed. But short of a bunch of right wing nut jobs attacking army bases they will make some mildly restrictive changes and do petty things but hunting, target shooting and home defense are not in danger. Sure maybe if you think you need to get a mac10 at the mini mart you will feel infringed upon but your guns are not likely to be taken and there is no way you will defend yourself from the government with them.
This really doesn’t have anything to do with gun control or anything, but I thought you might enjoy these videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk
dsent,
” The idea that we can use guns to fight our government is absurd.”
How can you say that? Our country was created because people had weapons to fight an opressive government. Do you think if the founding fathers got together, held hands and resisted non-violently, that england would have stoped oppressing them? I don’t think so, they would have all been killed or thrown in jail. They FOUGHT for their freedom from oppression. The idea of standing up to opression from government is still relevent in my opinion.
Besides the amendment says “arms” not guns, arms include nuclear weapons and stinger missiles; I don’t want my neighbor to have a nuclear weapon. I mean I could be trusted with one but not him.
Gun and arms are the same thing my friend. Your example of your neighbor having a nuclear weapon is a lilttle extreme. Of course people shouldn’t have nuclear weapons in their basements, or heavy artillery like stinger missles, but restricting our gun rights is where I draw the line. The government is violating our consitituion by having gun controls in the first place. It clearly says not to be infringed. If enough people were pissed off and were armed I think the government would be very scared. There are more civilians than people in government, so I think its possible for people to fight the government if they had to. If you want proof that civilians can fight a superpower military just take a look at Iraq or Afghanistan, the people that are fighting against us don’t have tanks and planes but they are able to inflict high casuality numbers on our military. So to say its is impossible to fight the government because they have tanks and planes, and bigger guns is ubsurd to me.
How can you be so trusting of the government? Its all good if you are but I don’t get it. I think they are all corrupt if you ask me. Name one thing your elected represtitve has done to make your state or life better in any way. Its all a joke, all the politicans in washington do is steal our money and use it for corporate welfare. Do you think your money should be going to fund AIG or GM? Wouldn’t you rather have the money you made in your pocket so you can spend it? Why is someone else entitled to your labor?
Bill,
And if we did end up living in an Orwellian dystopia, you can be sure that information would be the strongest weapon we have. It wasn’t an armed mob with AK-47s that took down the Berlin wall — it was the fax machine.
I agree with you to an extent. Information is very important, a informed citizen is a very potent force but when all else fails you still need something to fall back on in my opinion. Banning assault sytle weapons is a waste of time because it had a very minor impact on violent crimes any way. I think that law abiding people should have the right to buy the type of firearms they want without restricted by the government. I believe that guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
Good blog! Further, this is about personal protection - the ability to protect ourselves and our families.
http://freedominus.today.com/
AZ,
Gandhi, did it in India, yes he took the country to independance with out raising a gun. This is a little different time than when our founding fathers were here. I never said that the founding fathers should have used nonviolence. Im talking about today in this country. As for Afghanistan or Iraq, do you see peace in Afghanistan or Iraq? they fight but what do they have to show for it? More war. I am not into perpetual war. And americans are not tribal people resisting a foreign invader. Make no mistake our government is watching us and if you plan an armed resistance you will be promptly locked up. I know people dont like the idea of nonviolence but it is the way to change things. Again did it help them at ruby ridge to have guns? Did it help in Waco? Im trying to think of a modern industrialized nation where citizens have overthrown it with guns against tanks and planes… Hmm I’ll keep trying.. our strength is in our numbers not in our guns. In fact I would say that if you want the government to take your guns away the best way to accomplish that is to keep talking about armed insurection. At the point the governmment thinks armed resistance from the population is a slim possibility, they will pick up the guns before that threat manifests.
Yes Gandhi did it through non-violent measures and I applaud him for that. My argument I guess is more of a constitutional issue. Our constitution was created for a reason, to keep government in check. Banning certain types guns by its very act alone is violating our constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. The gov’t is infringing upon our rights when they ban certain types of guns. So my thing is, if they can violate the constitution with no consequences, what is going to stop them from doing other things that infringe on our civil liberties? Where would they draw the line? There has never been an instance where government has decided to give up power and give it back to the people. Government is very keen to hold onto its power that they have.
I’m sure the government is watching what is being said online. I don’t think its right but I understand that they do need to monitor it for security reasons. That being said I doubt they really care what I have to say. Talking about guns or what ever else is my first amendment right. I’m not advocating for armed rebellion against the government, I was simply stating that it is our right to keep and bear arms, and that the government should not infringe on that right. So if the government wants to watch what I post, oh well what can I do?
keep and bear arms, arms, arms include stinger missles and curuise missles. Arms is not limited to guns. Where do you want to draw the line? Im not telling you Im asking you. Tanks are arms. Do you want your neighbor to have a tank? Arms control is reality and I am not of the opinion that the framers of the constitution were interested in protecting us from the government. I understand how that is part of the mythology of the constitution but Im just not buying it. I have not seen anything that suggests the framers were attempting to provide the people with means to defend themselves againts the framers themselves.
I agree with the author. The right to bear arms is our constitutional right. the right to protect ourselves against any act of violence whether it be the government or an intruder in our home. Being a child of the 60’s I was an avid protestor for civil rights, air pollution from the factories, child labor laws etc. We fought against the government as we had the right to be heard. The governement used guns and tear gas to bring us protestors down but we still won the war! So many good things came out of the protests such as conservation, equal rights, etc.
It seems that in the arms control debate very few are willing to accept that arms are not simply guns, arms are weapons. There are many kinds of weapons and the ammendment says nothing about guns, it talks of “arms”. Lets be honest about what we are discussing and that is our constitution and the citizens access to “arms” Ok I’m not taking a stand on what those limits should be, I’m simply asking folks to accept that “arms” and “guns” are the same thing under the ammendment. And to take a stand on “guns” is to ignore the ammendment, it says NOTHING about guns. How much fire power should I as a citizen be able to purchase? If I have the money should I be allowed under the ammendment to form my own army with tanks, guns, ICBMs and Nuclear Subs? Again, Where do you draw the line.. I am not telling you, I am simply asking you.
I agree with DSENT. What legitimate purpose is there to possessing Assault Weapons? Target shooting? Hunting? I challenge anyone to come up with a viable answer based in logic. Name one reason. I am a gun owner and do not feel my rights to own a gun are in danger by banning assault weapons. No one needs a weapon of that sort. Cop killer bullets? Come on. What are those used for? Nothing legitimate.
sorry Ive been busy lately, now to get to your responses.
dsent,
I accept your premise that “arms” and “guns” are the same thing under the constitution. I agree some weapons should not be in the hands of the average citizens such as ICBM’s, Tanks, Etc…. but
I draw the line at gun ownership. People should be allowed to own an assualt rifle if they believe it is in their best interest to do so. The government has no right to tell you otherwise. If a person is a law abiding citizen, I don’t see the problem with owning one.
# ndfenceofobama,
My question to you is why are you afraid of people owning assault rifles? The assault weapons ban expired in 2004 and there has not been a major incident with these weapons except for the random shootings every so often. So to say that people can not handle this type of firepower is completely wrong in my opinion. Violence has not increased since then, so are assault weapons really that bad?
Who cares what people want to use the assault weapons for, as long as its not used for a criminal acts like murder, or robbery it shouldn’t be of concern to you.
I believe as long as people are law abiding citizens, they should be allowed to own any type of gun they want. Having the ban on assault weapons did not help to decrease the crime rate, so obviously it is not the weapon the contributes to the high crime rate in this country, its the people that commit the crime. Criminals use smaller guns to commit crimes because its easier to conceal, why would they walk around with a assault weapon they can’t hide?
Why do you think they should be banned? I’m curious to hear your answer.
“I accept your premise that “arms” and “guns” are the same thing under the constitution… I draw the line at gun ownership. People should be allowed to own an assualt rifle if they believe it is in their best interest to do so.”
Fair enough but then stop pretending that your position is constitutional, you agree that thre should be limits and under the constitution those limits are not defined, so when the goverement does define them, your only argument is that you dont like where they draw the line. You conceed that a line should be drawn. The only point of contention is they draw the line in a place you don’t like. Seems like shifting ground to me, either you stand on the constitution and we should be able to get whatever arms we want or we accept that there will be limits. But since those limits are not defined by the constitution when we accept any limits we loose the constitutional gravity of the argument, and once you do that, all you have to hang your hat on is your personal prefrence as to where you want to draw the line. It’s no longer a constitutional argument.
dsent,
I must say that you have a point on this one. Ill chalk this one to you. I can’t really make a rebuttal to your argument.
RESPECT AZ,
Props for intelectual honesty, Im serious I cant tell you how much I respect that response. You are a man of integrity,
Peace
I disagree that any “arms” should be regulated. If somebody wants to buy an ICBM, let them. What are the chances that they will actually be able to use it? If they are dumb enought to spend their life savings on something like that, what would lead you to believe that they have the capability to use it? If your neighbor wants a tank, let him buy a tank. It’s not like it’s easy to hide, and should be realatively easy to monitor whether or not they are planning on using it. It would be easier to detect if it was going to be used for illegal activities than a handgun owned by your average Joe. Ammunition for tanks must be crazy expensive too. What are the chances that they are going to just blow things up frivolously?
Better yet…why not market the idea that you could buy a missile. Have whoever wants to buy the missile buy a specific missile that is used by the military. Send them a picture of the missile they purchased, or hell, send it to them. Next time a conflict arises abroad, invite them to go to their local military base. If they had the missile shipped to their house, have them bring it in. Load it up on a fighter jet and when the time comes let them press a little red button that would fire it, or let them give the order to the fighter jet to fire the missile. I’m sure this would be overwhelmingly popular.
Yeah, that scenario is a quite extreme, but I’d rather have that scenario than any regulations on what I can or cannot own. Limiting your right is how having no right begins. Once they set the precedent that they can set limitations, they can slowly take away your right. It begins with you can’t own a tank. Then you can’t own assault rifles, then handguns, then any gun. These groups are patient at achieving their agenda and you can’t give them an inch because they’ll take a mile.
Don’t let this dsent guy out debate you!!!! Stand up for what you know is right.
Do you like how I used dumb in a sentence, and then the next word was misspelled? Haha….I hope this doesn’t make my argument less credible.
Theunchosenone,
Since you put it that way, its makes alot of sense. Even though the examples may be extreme I totally get where your coming from on this one. We don’t need government telling us what we can and can’t do!! Dsent kinda of stumped me for a sec lol. He made a good argument… but I still believe that people can own guns lawfully and without government breathing down our necks.
I agree with you that government is slowly eroding our cilvil liberties one day at a time. I hope people wake up to this fact! We get monitored everywhere we go it feels like.!! Especially on the roads these days. There are speed cameras popping up everywhere! I hate it! Thanks for bringing me to my sense unchosen!
hehehe,
Let people have ICBMs, yeah right, stop Iran, stop N. Korea but let any retard buy any weapon they choose. Ok thats sound public policy. I have known plenty people who I wouldn’t trust with a lawn dart but y’all think its reasonable to let them buy hand grenades or rocket launchers or ICBMs. If that honestly makes sense to you then there is no reason to discuss the issue… I really don’t care if people have guns or not I don’t find the issue terribly interesting, the question in my mind is what is sound public policy. And when someone says yes anyone should be able to buy any weapon, all I can do is chuckle, after all the people I have met working in the psyche wards and ERs I find that patently absurd… well unless you dig mass murder then I guess its cool. And as far as “out debating” Im not even interested in winning a debates, I debate issues to gain and share understanding, I am not in it for my ego. If winning is more important that the truth I got no use for the discouse at all.
dsent,
unchosenone does have a point though, how realistic is for someone to buy a ICBM’s, tanks, missiles, etc… not very many right? Even if someone did, how would they even know how to use it? These arms arm extremely complex pieces of weaponry, so the odds of people buying them are pretty much nill.. I can appreciate the point he is trying to make.
Given the fact that most of these weapons are either not on the market or very expensive, the need for gun control seems kinda of irrelevant to me. Gun crime is a part of american society as of right now. If you want to address this problem, I think we need to look at the reason’s why people committ crimes.. i.e poverty, etc.. not the tools people use to commit crimes. People will committ crime if they have too regardless if the have a gun or not in my opinion. People will do what they have to do to survive.
Also, im not trying to win a debate dsent, I enjoy the discourse I have with you and everybody else that comments on my blog. I believe that I can learn from the dialouge between everyone.
AZ,
Check it out brah, I use to think of having plenty of guns on the streets as job security, I worked in ER, people getting shot takes up a good amount of social resources and insured I would have a job. But the cost of public policy is consequential. Someone has to pay for all these folks getting shot up. They don’t always die. And their care can get damn expensive. There is little doubt that the easier it is to get a hand gun the more hand gun shootings the society has. Now don’t get excited I’m not saying I want to pick them up. But to allow anyone to carry concealed does not strike me as sound public policy. I use to carry, and I guarantee my balls were bigger when I had it on me; I was much less inclined to take any shit from anyone. I was younger then, and I am confident that testosterone combined with a gun in your pocket can get you into a situation that gets someone killed when if you didn’t have that gun in your pocket better judgment would have prevailed.
For me the constitutional issue is mute since the constitution doesn’t mention guns. As for having a stinger missile or a grenade launcher, as you said, they are not on the market, and it’s because of arms control. Now a grenade would not be that expensive nor would numerous other weapons systems that are not legal to sell. But I can assure you that there are plenty of high power weapons that are really not complex to use and many people could afford to buy. Sure ICBMs or Cruise missiles are somewhat cost prohibitive, but not a Laws rocket launcher or a stinger missile. I honestly don’t think it’s a good idea to be letting the Montana Militia or other “extremist” groups have the ability to stock pile such weapons. And if we want to presume that there is any democratic process to protect in this country then degenerating to armed conflict with the government will put an end to what little democratic process is left. At the point the government sees a serious military threat to their power we will be in deep fuckin shit. The tanks will be in our streets and every soldier domestically will be a cop and a soldier. That’s not the country I want to live in.
I know guns provide people with a sense of security and there are places and times when it’s a damn good idea to have one. But to equate that with the idea that anyone should be allowed to have any weapon seems silly to me. And to allow anyone to get fully automatic weapons does not strike me as sound public policy. Yes they are FUN, BIG FUN. But I don’t believe easy access to them will make us more secure. I think it will make us less secure and more likely to get shot by some fuckin nut case.
Bill Finger could not be more factually incorrect.
The Bill of Rights in no way mentions blacks as three-fifths of a white person, and it never did. In fact, the Constitution itself never says that. It did count “all other persons” (meaning black SLAVES) as three-fifths of a person for purposes of apportionment of representatives to Congress and for taxes. This was because slaves could not vote, and northern state reps felt that the large number of slaves could unfairly tip the scales for southern states in terms of representatives. Free blacks, although not afforded citizenship, were NOT counted as three-fifths for this purpose (and in fact some also owned slaves themselves).
As for the Berlin wall, near rebellion by the populace brought it down, and almost did not. Fax machines had less to do with it than 30 years of oppression and government vacillation at the moment of truth. The East German government in fact had issued an order to shoot people trying to force the Checkpoint Charlie crossing and otherwise cross the wall, but the order was ignored because there was a conflicting order allowing the crossing of the border. While clarification was asked for, the guards were ordered to do nothing…a normal condition in a communist state. No action without orders. The government in effect abstained by refusing to clarify either order, and the Wall, in effect came down.
I know most of this because I was there. I was there that day and I drove the last armed patrol of the Wall by American forces.
I see your point, Bill, but your facts are just dead wrong.
You say you want gun control to make people safer? How is restricting guns to law abiding citizens going to make our nation safer? How many criminals do you know that commit shootings with guns registered in their names? That number is sure to be low. So is putting more restrictions out there going to stop people from owning these illegal guns? No. How likely is it that if somebody breaks into your house that you will be able to grab a rifle and eliminate the threat rather than getting your handgun out and using it for protection?
When will gun control be enough gun control for you? Eliminate the right to own assult rifles? Okay, but will that stop people from killing? Unlikely. Handguns next? Will that work? Probably not. Rifles? Won’t help. You see what criminals are capable of in jail, they can stab you to death with a miniature toothbrush. Will it be enough when all guns are illegal to own, and the only people that have guns are criminals? Should we be limited to slingshots and marbles?
You have to understand that there will be some unintended effects of allowing people the right to own whatever arms they want. There will also be some intended effects, like law abiding citizens being able to protect theirselves should they need to. As you work in a hospital, you should understand the idea of side effects. Example; One of your patients is in extreme pain so you give them morphine, oxycontin, or dilaudid. One side effect is that it could send their blood pressure crashing, causing new complications for the patient. Sure you can give them narcan
For 2008 there were about 45 murders per day in the United States. Thats about 16425 per year, and the FBI reported 16929 murders in 2007, but not all of those are commited with guns. I couldn’t find a stat with just murder by guns. If you divide that by the U.S. population of 303824640 you get 0.00005406:1. So thats 1/2% of 1% of 1%. Is that really a statistic that concerns you? Would it surprise you that there are45% or 52 million gun owners in the U.S.? So that means if you understand all of those murders to be committed by guns, than 3% of 1% of gun owners use their guns for murder. So do you want to take guns away from 80 million people because 3% of 1% (0.00031:1) of gun owners commit murder? Please!!!
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America
* Sure you can give them narcan, but then you are right back at square on with the original problem. So you can make all guns illegal, but you still have the original problem that people will still kill other people.
What did I miss? Who is talking about making all guns illegal and what the hell does narcan have to do with this?