For any American government official from the President of the United States to dogcatcher, thinking about adopting the progressives’ – statist end game of deconstructing the Bill of Rights, had better think again. Politically, if gun owners vote as a bloc, they are empowered to swing elections. Gun-controllers want more power not more safety. The only way to control more people is by persuading them to give up their own freedom willingly. Try to take it and they will resist with deadly force.
It is no coincidence or happens chance that the United States of America is home to the freest people on planet Earth. America assembled the largest armed civilian population in the world. Over 42% of America’s 300 plus million people are legal gun owners. It is a foundation of our national and domestic defense. Armed Americans can fight any hostile enemy on U.S. Soil or remove an unconstitutional government by force of arms if need be.
History continues to teach us that no government ever disarmed their own population to free or protect them. The premise of “gun-control” is a false hood and I will destroy it by the time you finish reading this article. It is about people-control.
This article is not for the easily offended or of the emotionally triggered persuasion. Continue at your own peril, because the flow of facts, logic and commonsense that follows, may induce irreversible conversion to American constitutionalism. Even the most ardent anti 2nd Amendment protesters among you may snap out of it and apply for a firearms permit to secure your God-given rights.
Suffice to say, that this debate was settled with the ratification of the Bill of Rights. I will not yet again re-state Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Washington, nor Franklin, who made their intent abundantly clear in plain English, as they were masters of the language and wrote it for the most common colonist of their day to understand. I will not re-try Supreme Court decisions on the matter of “inalienable rights”, delineated succinctly in the Bill of Rights, and most clearly of all in the 2nd Amendment.
Civics 101 and responsible “Good Citizenship” are no longer included in the public school curriculum. The intended outcome is to dumb down the population. This in part is the reason why so many are woefully uninformed and consider themselves ‘progressives’. That is why some in this generation dismiss it as outdated and are truthfully dead wrong on this issue because it is conditioned response into a groupthink mentality. If we all agree, then we must right. Anyone who disagree’s with us, must be wrong. That is precisely why we are a constitutional republic, so that we remain a nation of laws and not shifting public opinion.
So let’s begin with the premise of public safety. Keep your cool. Let us keep in mind the difference between intended and unintended consequences. The constitutional-deconstructionist or so called “social liberal” or “progressive” argues the founders did not envision modern weapons. Thereby the 2nd Amendment is outdated. They conclude public safety nullifies the population’s “inalienable” rights and it may indeed be infringed upon for the sake of the children. The intended consequence was to breach those rights. Their long-term plan is to incrementally regulate these rights away, slice-by-slice, until the population is effectively disarmed or under-armed.
However, it is a phony sales pitch because the public is not rendered safer but vulnerable to miscreants who are armed and fall to their mercy. The 2nd Amendment guaranteed as unimpeachable and inalienable the “right to keep and bear arms”.
It is our right to keep and bear the arms that are the norm of contemporary times. Be it slings, arrows, muskets, or an Arma-Lite 15 .223 caliber or Star Trek phaser or even a molecular destabilizer laser ray gun. I know I would want one for Christmas.
The founders were clear in their intent behind the words “infringed” and “inalienable” in anticipation of the day it would be argued as “outdated.” They made it clear to us that it is about our “right” not the “tool” of the times we live in. We have the right to keep whatever contemporary weapons of our day that we choose to exercise and defend that “right” with.
If that went right over the progressive liberal minded head it may be worth repeating. It was clear before the ink dried on that amazing document and it is just as true and clear in our times. Tragic loss, sadness nor mindless emotion resulting from the act of a deranged murderer does not outweigh an inalienable right. Hence, “shall not be infringed.”
Next they retort: What about having a nuclear bomb, or a machine gun or Tank or Fighter Jet? In principle yes, if the day comes where these “arms” are as prolific as the handgun or rifle and becomes the norm, then the debate will be a technical issue of where do we park it?
New technology does not neutralize an “inalienable right”. It is timeless because it was endowed by the Creator not a government institution or policy of the day. The government cannot take away what it did not give. It belongs to us as a birthright with or without any government. Rights out pace technology, not the other way around.
Learn from what history teaches us. In the roaring twenties, when bootleggers used the Thompson Machine gun to fight their gang wars, the Federal Government, who learned nothing from prohibiting Single Malt Scotch, applied that same progressive groupthink and banned the “Tommy-Gun” from the public also. The outcome was now only criminals traded in fine whiskey and possessed “Tommy” guns. Thanks to the progressives misguided people control groupthink, they had almost exclusively reserved the Thompson Machine Gun for gangsters only by the law.
More laws, greater infringements, police, judges and jails do not stop criminal intent as is logically proven by the reality we have more police, judges and jails now than before. Committing a violent crime produces a victim, whose personal safety was violated. Observable data proves laws, police, judges or prison did not prevent the crime or keep safe the victim as the stated intended outcome alleges.
Law enforcement does not prevent crime. People of moral character, who are law abiding and considerate of others, who value life and respect the property of others prevent crime because they do not commit them in the first place.
No, the job of law enforcement is as their name implies, to enforce the law. When a criminal victimizes an individual citizen, that suspect is apprehended, prosecuted, and imprisoned but none of that did the disarmed, unprotected murder victim or their family any good. The law stripped their right of self-protection from them. The law empowered the criminal, armed the criminal and disarmed the law-abiding citizen contrary to the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
What about age limits? “No teenager should be able to own a gun.” That is what we hear now. Without being exhaustive, please apply some logic and basic sociology. What would be the outcome of rendering an entire segment of the population, based on age group as untrustworthy, incapable of responsibility or self-discipline?
Irrespective of that nation’s wars are fought in the trenches and battlefields by their youngest, strongest, and bravest. The word “Infantry” is rooted in and derived from the notion of “infant.” Remember, it was a WWII 19-year-old infantryman that became the soldier most decorated for valor in combat. His name was Audie Murphy.
Also, it is a distorted and false premise, that a demented teen by whatever cause, will be magically cured and the public rendered safer on the day of their 21st birthday. What consequences may come, be they intended or unintended by conditioning and perpetuating for years to come an ill prepared generation of men, purged of the instinct of self-defense, unwilling and untrained to fight for themselves, their family or nation? Such nations are conquered, absorbed and disappear from history. Their sovereignty lost and people enslaved.
Gun-free zones! What were they thinking? Criminals, terrorists and miscreants would somehow regulate their crimes between armed and unarmed civilian target zones? Actually, yes they do, they choose to attack unarmed soft targets and not armed hard targets.
Here is proof. Ask them. Criminologists and counterterrorist study prisoners all the time in order to glean and plot their thinking and methodologies. Did a multi million-dollar research grant conclude after exhaustive focus groups at GITMO, terrorists would not plan their crime or attack in a gun free zone, because, well, the sign says, no guns allowed here?
If that intended outcome worked, then a Nobel Peace Prize would be in order. The unintended outcome has been disastrous. That plan just does not work. Which may lead some to ponder just what is the true intended outcome of disarming the law abiding American in the face of these realities?
I only evoked social psychology, abnormal behavior, political philosophy, what we know from criminologist and anti-terrorist tactics. By these lines of thinking and conflict calculus, I just eliminated every argument for infringing on “inalienable” rights as a means of acquiring public safety.
All that remains is to say is if a law was passed against gravity, do not expect anything to float. If a law is passed banning guns from certain public zones, increased age requirements and shamed owners to surrender their weapons, the one and only consequence of a disarmed American public is the dissolution of the Bill of Rights.
Only the law abiding would be disarmed in an unwise trade of their freedom for a sense of false personal safety. In that environment, only the criminal, terrorist and miscreants would be armed and emboldened to prey on the most vulnerable.
In the case of a tyrannical government disarming their population; Thomas Jefferson warned: “Those who beat their swords into plowshares, will plow the fields for those who didn’t”.
Fresh from the experience of fighting a world war to defeat fascist Nazism; General Eisenhower warned; “Security without freedom is called Jail.”
Today; the progressive Statist gun grabbers chant: “Plow the fields for $15 an hour, freedom is do what we tell you, it is better to get free stuff from the rich, you don’t need ten rounds to kill a deer, we’ll keep you safer.”
From the embodiment of timeless wisdom; Jesus commanded: “Sell your cloak and script and buy a sword if you do not have one”. Luke 22: 36.
Pondering the Bill of Rights; Jesus is the inspiration behind the 2nd Amendment. Argue with him, not me.
The only prudent response to the current emotionally driven hysteria fueled by those whose progressive agenda are best served by an emasculated and disarmed society; stock up on ammo and buy a firearm in preparation of that unwise government foolish enough to try and take them from people like us.
There is but one way to stop an active shooter at the scene and in the act of murder. It is not by asking them ‘pretty please’, declare it a gun-free zone, or by infringing the law abiding through bans or age limits. Sadly, it is by re-enforcing steely resolve to fight back and shoot back. Disarming us, will not make us safer. We are safer by producing more Audie Murphy’s than not.