C.R.A.P.
The Second Amendment &
Gun Control
By Sam Frescoe,
Veteran’s Recall
http://veterans-recall.blogspot.com/
The best protection for the
Second Amendment is proper gun control. I believe there is a direct connection
between attacks on the Second Amendment rights of every American, gun toting
and otherwise, and the improper control of firearms. Let’s face the facts. If
proper gun control was adopted by everyone, then there would be no need to
attack the Second Amendment. Who’s with me!?
Anybody? The silence is
deafening, folks.
Why? Because protecting the
Second Amendment through gun control is coercive, ridiculous, arrogant, and
pointless. In other words, it’s CRAP.
FYSA: I say that proper
gun control begins with the use of both hands.
Gun Control History
Here is a brief history of gun
control laws in the United States.
1791 – The Second Amendment is ratified.
1934 – The National Firearms Act – Passed to slow the sale of
machine guns and sawed-off shotguns to the public. If the government does not
want to tangle with a well-armed John Dillinger and
Al Capone, then placing a tax on citizens for the hardware of choice should let
gangsters know the government means business. Brilliant!
NOTE: Did anyone else notice that
the Second Amendment worked just fine for 143 years before it was disturbed?
1938 – The Federal Firearms Act –
If you can’t beat the criminals, then license law abiding business owners.
1968 – The Gun Control Act – Let’s restrict certain…um…undesirable
Americans.
1972 – The ATF is created to harass legitimate business
owners.
1986 – The Firearms Owners Protection Act becomes law by Ronald
Ray-gun!
1993 – The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act is passed.
Please understand, the government is not saying you cannot buy a gun.
1994 – The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act is
passed because getting shot by a new weapon is deadlier than being shot by an older
weapon (say less than 10-yrs or so). Don’t feel bad. I didn’t know this either.
2003 – The Tiahrt Amendment – Some (partial) good sense
begins to emerge. If a person uses a weapon in a crime, then the last seller
and/or original manufacturer is not liable for the results. Duh!
2007 – The government promises not to misuse private
ownership and mental health data in order to protect you from yourself and
others (even if you don’t know of your criminal potential…yet).
Question: Is the government
controlling guns or people?
Gun Control Reality
If the liberal-progressive logic
of gun control is realized, then guns will be controlled right out of the hands
of law-abiding citizens and into the hands of criminals and government
enforcers. Government enforcers do not care about law-abiding citizens because
the government is focused on criminals with guns. The criminals with guns do
not care about law-abiding citizens so long as government enforcers are out of
the way (one way or another).
Law-abiding citizens are left in a lurch with only one of several
choices: disobey the law and go to jail, protect themselves with a firearm and
go to jail, or talk down their attacker for 5-17 minutes (or as long as it
takes) until government enforcers arrive in enough force to consider the
options.
The Real Problem
In an effort to do what “feels
good” there has been a lack of effort to do what “is good.”
Gun violence is not the real
problem. Gun violence, as human-tragic and media-profitable as it may be, is a
symptom and nothing more. The real
problem is rooted in the free-will each American has by virtue of being human. The
“elites" know this as well as you and me. That’s why they are selling
people control (ß
insert “gun control” here).
While each American has the
ability to choose, there will always be someone that elects to choose a violent
means in order to achieve an end. In other words, there are some people that do
not, or will not, recognize that the life, family, and property of each
American is sacred. These are not just thoughts on a blog. These are moral
rights regardless of circumstance.
The real problem is displayed
when some people do not constrain themselves by what is morally right. This is
why attempting to control weapons, hardware, or people will not realize the
desired effect of zero gun violence. The only way to realize this goal is to
put everyone in a maximum security prison and throw away the keys. Otherwise,
someone will find a way to use gun violence to achieve an end because the
option seems legit enough to work.
In the off-chance that you think
this progressive idea is 100% CRAP, there is an alternative answer. Cue the Second
Amendment!
The Answer
“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.”
If the Second Amendment is
strong, then so is the ultimate equalizer and final deterrent to armed
violence. My head is about to explode because I can hear the
liberal-progressives now. “The Second Amendment is a gun control amendment.”
This is enough CRAP to fertilize all of Kansas three feet thick for the next ten
years.
A suitably educated (not
trained) American, let’s say anyone having graduated from a middle school, can
accurately make the following conclusions.
1. The
right to “keep and bear arms” is reserved to the people, not a militia.
2. The
right of the people to be armed is not granted by the amendment. The right is
preexisting and shall not be infringed upon by the government.
3. The
range and scope of weapons is not limited.
Still not sold? Consider the
following questions and answers.
Q: Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep
and bear arms solely to a “well-regulated militia”?
A: The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people. It simply makes a positive statement with respect to the right of the people.
A: The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people. It simply makes a positive statement with respect to the right of the people.
Q: Is the right granted by the words of the Second Amendment,
or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right?
A: The right is not granted by the amendment. Its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
A: The right is not granted by the amendment. Its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
Q: Does the right depend on a condition, such as the existence
of a militia?
A: No such condition is expressed or implied. The right is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. The right is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
A: No such condition is expressed or implied. The right is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. The right is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
Has fear over taken you? If the
answer is “yes,” then you are a die-hard liberal-progressive with a full range
of “good feelings.” Even so, you can rest easy because American veterans (the
rough men and women with steal backs, sharp minds, and internal fortitude built
upon “doing good”) have already bought and paid for your privileges in your
stead.
Going Forward
The American right to “keep and
bear arms” is a pen stroke away from destruction. This final stroke can come
from the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Executive, local governments, and
even the school board. It’s time to fight back and claim what is rightfully
ours, the Constitution of the United States.
I am calling all veterans.
America needs you again. America needs you now!
No comments:
Post a Comment