“When will America choose to protect children instead of guns?”
—- The headline writer for the Washington Post, introducing columnist Petula Dvorak’s column this morning on the Newtown, Connecticut elementary school shooting, which took the lives of 26, including 20 children.
Presumably the Post’s headline writer was inspired to come up with that headline by the similar statement from Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children’s Defense Fund, who was quoted in Dvorak’s essay. Edelman said,
“This latest terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School is no fluke. It is a result of the senseless, immoral neglect of all of us as a nation to fail to protect children instead of guns and to speak out against the pervasive culture of violence. It is up to us to stop these preventable tragedies.”
This is not quite as irresponsible and dangerous as the Post’s headline, but it is close. The suggestion that greater safety and security compels and justifies abandoning the core rights that make the United States unique and free is the ticket to tyranny, benevolent or otherwise.
The United States needs more sensible, consistent and enforceable gun regulations. It needed them before yesterday’s tragedy, it needed them before the Aurora shootings, it needed them before Columbine, and it needs them now. It does not need, and must not decide “to protect children over guns.” That is a not merely a call for limiting possession of legal firearms to the government and to criminals. It is a call for a philosophical shift in the United States away from autonomy, liberty, individual power and freedom to government domination in the elusive quest for “safety and security.”
This is an especially dangerous and volatile time for such a statement, because the public’s willingness to trade its self-sufficiency and Constitutional rights for safety has been increasing sharply ever since the World Trade Center came down. We now tolerate warrantless searches of our person, being forced to half-undress ourselves and even to allow strangers to fondle our private parts in order to fly. Where once we could easily visit the offices of our highest elected officials, our access to them is now blocked by cement barricades and burdensome security procedures. We approve of the government killing individuals from drones in the sky, including American citizens, without a trial, due process of law, or a declaration of war, because it makes us “safer.” For the first time, the government can force us to buy a product it thinks is essential, and we allow it, because we’re afraid of getting sick. Throughout history, citizens in nations with varying levels of freedom have virtually enslaved themselves out of fear, to be safe, to be secure,”for the children,” turning to Caesar, Napoleon, Tito, Castro, Putin and, yes, Hitler, surrendering responsibility for their own welfare by entrusting it to a “strongman”—who, naturally, they agreed to make stronger.
It is a long process to move from banning guns, which is the implied argument put forth by the Post and Edelman, to the erosion of other core rights, but once we accept the argument, “When will America choose to protect children instead of X ?”, it is process that has a clear, open, and predictable path. For example, earlier this week various blogs (you can read the Volokh take here; Ken’s, at Popehat, here) took aim at a new Vernon County, Wisconsin ordinance that established a penalty of $50 to $500 or up to 30 days in jail for anyone “…who sends information to another person by electronic means with the intent to annoy, offend, demean, ridicule, degrade, belittle, disparage, or humiliate any person,” if the information “serves no legitimate purpose.” The ordinance, despite being approved by more than one lawyer (Ken suggests that they got their degrees at a laundromat), is obviously, indefensibly, spectacularly and idiotically unconstitutional, such a blatant violation of Free Speech that it would be right at home in any totalitarian government of the last 70 years. In the news story covering debate on the measure, however, it is clear that none of this mattered to the bone-headed County Supervisors, who were convinced that protecting vulnerable children from “cyber-bullying” was sufficient justification to tell Mr. Madison and Mr. Mason to take a hike.
Kim Ward, one of the lawyers who voted for the measure, said, “I understand that freedom of speech is important but so is the right to live free of fear.”
And there we have it, don’t we? That sentiment is flinging open the door in the fortress against tyranny, and it is exactly the sentiment that the Post, Edelman, and many, too many, voices among us are expressing. They would allow those few who abuse our precious rights to justify taking them from all of us, to be safe.
The irony is that doing so will not make us safer at all.
________________________________
Sources: Washington Post: Lacrosse Tribune
Graphic: Yahoo!
Ethics Alarms 
Bravo for writing such an eloquent and on point article.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” —Benjamin Franklin
Thank you, Arthur. I had Ben’s quote right in front of me as I drafted this, and left it out to see who would be the first one to quote it. It is, as are most of Ben’s nuggets, as succinct a statement of the truth as possible,timeless, and wise. But surely old fashioned and out of step with more modern thought, as Ed would have it.
As I started to read the article, Ben’s quote came immediately to mind. I’m glad I’m not the only one. I recited that line to a TSA agent a few years ago as I endured a thorough palpation of my nether regions…of course he was not amused. He also had no idea who authored the quote, of course.
Great post.
Japan has a strict policy of not allowing citizens to possess firearms. In 2001 a man entered a school in Osaka and stabbed and killed 8 children and injured more than a dozen other children and teachers. Four years ago in Akihabara a man drove a truck into a crowd of Sunday shoppers, killing 4, then got out and went on a stabbing spree, killing another 4 and injuring 8 before he was stopped. We also had the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway system, just a bunch of guys that had plastic bags of chemicals that they mixed to create the gas by poking them with umbrellas . If people want to kill, they will find a way. So outlawing guns alone isn’t going to do it.
I don’t think that selling assault rifles and AK47s is necessary (how many deer hunters need a gun like that?) , but I do think that focusing solely on the weapon is missing part of the picture. In both Japan and the US mental health care needs to be improved. The fact that there are people so unbalanced that they can rampage and kill dozens of people is a big part of the picture, but it seems that it doesn’t get addressed but gets shunted aside in the cry to ban firearms.
I’m going to have to disagree with you on that last part, Crella. You illustrate a terrible danger to the basic intent ofn the 2nd Amendment without realizing it. Those “assault rifles”. What exactly is one? It sounds bad, doesn’t it? But these are exactly the weapons that the Amendment was designed for. Not deer rifles, not small caibre target pistols. The Revolution started when British troops attempted to seize an arsenal in Concord MA. They were opposed American militiamen armed with muskets not quite as good as the British Army’s “Brown Bess”, but comparable enough to allow them to to fight and turn back the invader. Those weapons were the “assault rifles” of their day. To resist tyranny- foreign or domestic- citizens must have access to weapons to defend themselves against trained forces. The ban against fully automatic weapons for citizens came about within living memory. Will we now deny citizens the right to even semi-automatic rifles as well? It is by this step by step procedure that the forces of the Left have been essentially disarming the American public. Wherever it’s instituted, crime flourishes… and America becomes “more in need of masters”.
There are a few solutions available, like random mental health screenings and involuntary internment or euthanasia of those who fail. After all, if insane people are interned or euthanised, they can not get guns.
What could go wrong?
Thank you for the information, I don’t know a lot about guns, I have to admit.
You practically have to be a veteran to understand the terms and the effectiveness of modern weapons systems, Crella.
The US Constitution is either a living document, or a dead document. If it’s a living document then we need to understand that we live in a vastly differently world than 1775 and the Constitution must be interpreted within the context of the here and now. If it’s a dead document then it must be read explicitly as written at the time with no modification or interpretation.
If the former is true then there is no problems banning some arms that have no place in society. If the later is true, then those of us in a “well regulated militia” should be allowed to own as many muzzle-loading flintlock rifles as we want.
Either way, the solution to the gun problem in the US is much tougher screening and control of ownership (as in Switzerland) and a limit of 3 rounds/shells/cartridges in a gun at any one time. Magazines and other loading mechanism are not covered under original intent of the founders and therefore are free to be regulated or banned outright.
The Constitution’s intent and purposes are clear enough to anyone who doesn’t have an agenda to overthow it. The term “living constitution” is utilized by those who believe it their province to alter or abolish its provisions as they see fit for the sake of political expediency. This is exactly why the framers made the legal means of amendment so difficult. The articles and original amendments of the Constitution fit together in a neat, logical order to form a working whole… like an automatic rifle! It’s neither living nor dead just yet.
The purpose has not changed. That’s why your contention that modern weaponry is not covered under the Constitution is completely without merit. The framers deliberately used the term “arms”, not “muskets”. The tool is not so important as the purpose… and that purpose is to allow free American citizens to resist depredation. Without the 2nd Amendment, the Bill of Rights cannot endure, nor the effectiveness of the Constitution.
The Left knows this. Thus their obsession with the “living document” doctrine and their relentless push to ban privately owned firearms. Their intent is control, which obviates a free republic by its nature.
Historically, the largest abusers of guns in human history are governments. Governments were responsible for the shooting deaths of Mark Clark, Fred Hampton, Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, Sean Bell, Pedro Navarro-Oregon, and Kenneth Chamberlain. They have even perpetrated massacres from Wounded Knee to My Lai to Panjwai.
If we need to get rid of guns, we should get rid of government guns first.
There has been no time in history where the federal government had so many law enforcement and investigative agencies, with such numbers of personnel and so well armed. Nor has there been a time when so many federal personnel- armed or otherwise- had so much direct contact with and control over private citizens in day to day affairs. Few of those agencies or functions can be reconciled with legitimate federal authority under the strictures of the Constitution. That’s what happens when the “living document” crowd are allwed to work their will.
As a test run, we should impose those limitations, including the limit of 3 rounds/shells/cartridges, upon law enforcement, including the Secret Service’s presidential security detail.
Why do government agents need more than 3 rounds in their firearms?
Obviously, if some arms have no place in society, government would not use them.
“The US Constitution is either a living document, or a dead document.” What does this mean exactly? It certainly is a pithy statement. Its also an excellent illustration of a false dichotomy, right up their with, “You’re either for us or against us”. If you mean, “it is either open to modification or it is not”, then I agree with you. The founders anticipated this and included the mechanisms we’re all familiar with to effect a modification. If you mean, as I’m afraid you do, that our basic civil rights are malleable based on changes in technology, societal norms, and political ideology, then your statement evidences a profound misunderstanding about the principles the country was founded upon.
It might help you to understand if you think of the Constitution as originally proposed separately from the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is nothing more than a plan (albeit an extremely well crafted one) of how to run a relatively centralized, federal government. As such, need for changes were anticipated and provided for. This type of government, as does any government, requires that its citizens recognize its authority to abrogate a portion of their rights. Unfortunately, this was a hard sell for the Founders as they sought the consent of the governed during the ratification process. As a compromise, the citizens agreed to pledge loyalty (through ratification) only if the newly formed federal government formally recognized and enumerated certain rights. Thus the Bill of Rights was created. At this point, I should clarify that the agreement was not that the government should “give” these rights. They are not the Government’s to give. You possess them as a condition of being born, as surely as you have fingers, toes, ears and a nose. (My apologies to those of us who may not have fingers, toes, ears, or noses; at least you have your rights)
So, I guess this living vs dead malarkey does apply to the Constitution. It most certainly does not apply to the Bill of Rights. I apologize for the pedantic tone of my post, but it seems that you may have missed some of this in History class.
Exactly. James thanks you, Patrick thanks you, George thanks you, and I thank you.
I don’t think they teach it in the schools anymore, John. Good post.
There are other things we can do to protect children, such as install security cameras in shower rooms to be able to intercept rapists like Jerry Sandusky.
Where else should we put cameras top keep children safe?
In every office of the U.S. Departmentof Education.
Here is another way to protect children.
The shooter had mental issues.
We could institute random mental health screenings and involuntary internment or euthanasia of those who fail. After all, if insane people are interned or euthanised, they can not get guns.
What could go wrong?
By the way, should we find it the slightest bit coincidental that the Left is now much more vocal about tackling gun control from the mental Health angle? All after the government has taken control of the health industry?
Because who gets to decide the standard of mental instability now? Who decides by what measure is a person deemed unstable?
It sounds conspiracy kook-ish, I know. Just saying, funny how the infrastructure for such decisions to be made and actions to be taken now exists; and Lo and Behold if that’s not what the debate just became…
a gun is not liberty , 20 kids were sacrificed on the alter of NRA gun nuts.
Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. And facile to boot. Bumper-sticker analysis, and not one of the smart bumper-stickers, either.
Kenneth Chamberlain, Amadou Diallo, Patrick Dorismond, Sean Bell, Pedro Navarro-Oregon, Mark Clark, and Fred Hampton were sacrificed on the altar of law and order nuts.
The victims of Wounded Knee, My Lai, and Panjwai were sacrificed on the altar of military nuts.
Ladies and Gentlemen, waste no time responding to this. It is from so far deep into the irrational method of thought, that not even a ton of logic can dissuade this ignorance.
So few words, though, and such cliched dunderheadedness! Plus, I venture that nicatter is closer to the norm than we would like to think. He/she might even be Carole Costello!
This is a good sample of the gibberish spewed from the mouths of politicians, which sadly, are eaten up, and are the foundation of the decline of freedom in society in general.
Such a statement involving children as the premise, places the ignorant on the spot to side with “of course we want to protect our children and will do ANYTHING to do it” . It is appalling, but this is not the first time such a statement has been made which eventually led to the slavery noose tightening ever so much closer. This is a psychological tact which must be identified as deviant, self-serving, anti-social, and prey’s upon the “motherhood”/”fatherhood” protective nature of people as a means to achieve a more sinister goal — In this case, and unarmed nation = a (more) controllable nation; And it’s not the “criminals” that get the guns taken away —- it’s the CITIZENS / Denizens (as the context may require).
—->> Illegally obtained guns will not stop being Illegal if they pass a law that it is illegal for citizens to have guns. <<—–
They know this! We know this ! But they still keep trying to squeeze more anyway, because as history has proven, society becomes complacent over 1, maybe 2 generations later. What would be appalling for us now, and is NO WAY —- Becomes "the norm" 1 to 2 generations from now —– All for "good" reasons.
Speaking of…. remember giving up all that freedom for "security" at airports and such —– How IS that "war" on "terror" coming along. —- Anyone who can think critically, should be able to read into this message and get the entire gist of what I am saying here. I'm just tired of explaining the obvious, an would rather see a complete change in the mechanics that drive our system(s) than to stand helpless and relatively alone watching a society flush itself down the toilet for acceptable lies in a terrifying distortion of how some far off connection that yields to their overall agenda somehow matches a crisis (either staged/planned or legitimate crazy) as a catalyst for spewing preposterous jargon about how such a law would have "prevented" something so terrible — and thus, an overall acceptance by the sheeple at large. Meanwhile: The sheeple still believe they are free, and we know that the best type of slave is one that believes they are free — because they don't fight back !!
What could have prevented this tragedy would be random mental health screenings, and summary euthanasia of anyone who fails. This would be far less burdensome than gun restrictions, since the only people who would be euthanised would be people with mental problems.
Is it worth it to do this to protect children?
Eugenics is a solid option although this is more directly a social issue. “Mental health” screenings are more subjective to opinion rather than established fact, and thus can not prove a conclusive measure for dissuading occurrences like what happened in CT.
Greetings Jack,
Great site! I can’t believe I didn’t find it until a couple of weeks ago.
I, for one, am blown away by the tragedy in CT. It was an unspeakable horror.
It is sadly predictable that the various anti-gun intelligensia would use this situation to forward their agendas. These agendas, I believe, are unethical at their very foundation.
The 64K question is: Does gun control improve public safety? Would disarming the law-abiding civilian population reduce crime? Would the various costs of a program like that pay dividends?
I believe the answers to the above (admittedly rhetorical) questions are: No. No. And, No. The crime rate in any jurisdiction depends on a variety of socioeconomic and cultural factors, but when isolated as a factor, gun restrictions result in crime rates going UP, loosening restrictions correlates to crime rates going DOWN. There is plenty of literature on the subject, probably the most famous (infamous?) is More Guns, Less Crime: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=j6cMYKRgqQ8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=more+guns+less+crime&ots=_3cWYeW-eP&sig=idtezCxVxvJwnP144ZCGzgCZSx4
Perhaps I am making more of an economic argument than an ethical one. Spending a dollar to save 5 dollars is good economic sense. Does “spending” (sacrificing) one life to save 5 lives also makes sense… is it ethical? I would say so, particularly from a public policy viewpoint.
Welcome, Bill, and please keep giving us the benefit of your ethics perspective.
To ignore the differences between a 1770’s neophyte America without a standing army and a population of about 2.5M that is under the shadow of a much more mature, more militarily powerful country and 21st century America is absolutely insane.
As a society we have chosen to prepare and arm various standing armies to protect us against enemies foreign and domestic. We have the US Military, FBI, and the CIA. At the state level we have the National Guard, [State]BI and Highway Patrol/State Police. At the county level we have the Sheriff’s Department, many with full tactical SWAT teams, and at the city level we have local police departments. If you want “nearly” unregulated access to arms you need to join one of these “well regulated militias.”
If you’re going to argue that you need to be as well armed as any of these militias you are off your rocker. This would require unfettered access to small and large caliber automatic weapons, rocket launchers, anti-tank weapons, armored personal carriers, Stinger SAMs, F-35s, B-2 Bombers, and a couple of W88s in my garage in case the local sheriff decides to infringe on my rights.
Furthermore, any thoughts about taking up arms against the repressive government is nothing more than a pre-pubescent Red Dawn wet dream. Our country and our society have evolved greatly since 1776 and we have ways of addressing grievances with our government. Any attempt to take up arms against our own government will get you arrested (at best) or shot.
Making all firearms hold less than 4 rounds does nothing to infringe on your rights to own guns, but simply puts reasonable regulations on the gun itself. If that’s too much, then make all firearms with a capacity of more than 3 rounds a Class III weapon subject to background check and regulation as enumerated by the first part of the 2nd Amendment that people all too often forget.
I am under no illusions that anything will change after Newton. We’ve for too long allowed our government to pass swiss cheese legislation that too often exacerbates the problem (Re: assault weapons ban that was merely cosmetic, or clip ban that allowed existing high capacity clips to remain in public hands, or the prevision that allowed Law Enforcement Agencies to sell their high capacity clips to the public even after the ban. I could go on.) More than that though, incidents like Newton show the power of guns in the hands of any ordinary citizen. “Sorry about the kids, but just think, if he can mow down 27 people in under 5 minutes just imagine what I can do when the socialists come to enslave me.”
I am so glad the United States Army was on site to cap the shooter as soon as he started shooting….
“To ignore the differences between a 1770′s neophyte America without a standing army and a population of about 2.5M that is under the shadow of a much more mature, more militarily powerful country and 21st century America is absolutely insane.”
Also known as the “2nd Amendment is soooooo 18th century” argument.
Unfortunately, that logically fallible argument applies to the 1st Amendment…hey, it’s as old fashioned as the 2nd!!!
Just join one of the state-oriented media outlets if you want your opinion heard on the public forum!!
“As a society we have chosen to prepare and arm various standing armies to protect us against enemies foreign and domestic. We have the US Military, FBI, and the CIA. At the state level we have the National Guard, [State]BI and Highway Patrol/State Police. At the county level we have the Sheriff’s Department, many with full tactical SWAT teams, and at the city level we have local police departments. If you want “nearly” unregulated access to arms you need to join one of these “well regulated militias.””
Since this one is rife with fallacies, I’m not wasting time on it other than to say ALL of those agencies save the one I will discuss shortly are historically NON-analogous to the Militia. The militia was always considered the Body of Armed Citizens, never the national guard until corrupting legislation in the early 20th century was enacted.
The National Guard is a modern corruption of what was considered the Militia. The Militia Act of 1903 began the corruption of the Militia by handing its funding source to the national level of the federal government as a reaction to poorly prepared militia unit’s performance in the Spanish American War (1st time the Militia was called out for foreign invasions – notably, not the intent of the Founding Fathers who had hoped to avoid foreign entanglements)
Shortly thereafter, the final submission of the Militias to Federal Authority was the National Defense Act of 1914, which only notionally left the National Guard as it had begun to be called under State Authority.
So, no, the National Guard is NOT the militia any more than that other plethora of ENFORCEMENT Agencies you listed is.
If you bother to read the relationships in the Federal Government that the Founder’s envisioned, you would see the IMPORTANT role of the Militia. The right to keep and bear arms is not one that was GRANTED by the federal government, like the ENTIRE Bill of Rights, these rights were seen as to exist NATURALLY, but were so important they needed to be codified.
The federal government had a standing army for the defense of the nation. They knew a standing army could be employed tyrannically, and therefore invested in the separate states, the authority to wield their own checks against that standing army: notably the ability of the State Governor’s to call out the State’s Militia.
The individual citizens being the 3rd level of checks and balances in this equal separation of FORCE, were recognized as having every right to bear the same weapons that the infantrymen of the Standing Army bore. The State Militia repositories held the heavier weapons that may be necessary for opposition to the Standing Army.
Do some research before making emotional, irrational assertions, especially those as stupid as claiming the FBI, et al, is a modern incarnation of the Militia.
“If you’re going to argue that you need to be as well armed as any of these militias you are off your rocker. This would require unfettered access to small and large caliber automatic weapons, rocket launchers, anti-tank weapons, armored personal carriers, Stinger SAMs, F-35s, B-2 Bombers, and a couple of W88s in my garage in case the local sheriff decides to infringe on my rights.”
Duh. Which is why the original intent of State Militias under authority of their State Governor’s was for those State Militias to be the repository of those heavier weapons. When you pop off with idiotic comments like that, you lose ALL credibility with any 2nd Amendment type immediately.
Furthermore, any thoughts about taking up arms against the repressive government is nothing more than a pre-pubescent Red Dawn wet dream. Our country and our society have evolved greatly since 1776 and we have ways of addressing grievances with our government. Any attempt to take up arms against our own government will get you arrested (at best) or shot.
That translates immediately into “those who forget history are doomed to repeat it”. Our society (being a sub-component of Western Civilization) has been nothing BUT advancing since the founding…HA! Men and governments are JUST as fallible now as they were then. IF we’ve been on a long trek of improvement, there would have been no forced Indian removals, no reservations, no civil war, no income tax, and no other evils enacted by the federal level of government.
The constitution and it’s system of checks and balances was created BECAUSE the founder’s new man and government were fallible!
I suppose the founder’s all just had pre-pubescent wet-dreams back in 1776.
”Making all firearms hold less than 4 rounds does nothing to infringe on your rights to own guns, but simply puts reasonable regulations on the gun itself. If that’s too much, then make all firearms with a capacity of more than 3 rounds a Class III weapon subject to background check and regulation as enumerated by the first part of the 2nd Amendment that people all too often forget.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The ‘regulated’ militia was because militias had to have RULES of ORGANIZATION and FUNCTION to work…just like the military today has UCMJ and Doctrine governing its behavior.
”I am under no illusions that anything will change after Newton. We’ve for too long allowed our government to pass swiss cheese legislation that too often exacerbates the problem (Re: assault weapons ban that was merely cosmetic, or clip ban that allowed existing high capacity clips to remain in public hands, or the prevision that allowed Law Enforcement Agencies to sell their high capacity clips to the public even after the ban. I could go on.) More than that though, incidents like Newton show the power of guns in the hands of any ordinary citizen. “Sorry about the kids, but just think, if he can mow down 27 people in under 5 minutes just imagine what I can do when the socialists come to enslave me.””
This is all crying about how we don’t live in the muddle-headed Utopia you dream about in your protected little home of non-thinking State-drones. Here: WELCOME TO THE WORLD. It is an ugly, cold, dangerous place. Our country is not immune to these dangers.
Here’s where the idiotic fantasy that Western Civilization can be a utopia comes from: The post World War 2 Pax Americana that was established by an overwhelming Domination of world politics by western powers led by America essentially diminished to relatively non-existent levels the dangers which you bemoan for over 3 generations!
That is enough time for anyone to forget that America and the Western powers were just as susceptible to dangers at home as well as abroad. It allowed for a false psychological comfort. Guess what, that post WW2 pax Americana is slowly waning, so much so that we are being faced with REAL LIFE on the cultural level again.
Here’s what people ought to be addressing: The break-down of the 2 parent (father and mother) nuclear family. That is the cause of most of the psychological grief that leads to these instances of violence. But hey, it’s easier to blame guns, huh?
“we have ways of addressing grievances with our government. Any attempt to take up arms against our own government will get you arrested (at best) or shot.”
Right, those ways of addressing grievance with our government are called “Free Speech, Petitions, Elections, and Right to Bear Arms”
Funny how the Founder’s encapsulated all of that in ONE document….
““we have ways of addressing grievances with our government. Any attempt to take up arms against our own government will get you arrested (at best) or shot.”
The exact same penalties existed facing the founding fathers when they spoke out. Good thing they had a different disposition than you.
If we are going to limit the 2nd amendment to muskets and the like, lets limit the 1st to quill pens and hand cranked printing presses!
Eric should write all of his objections on vellum paper with a quill pen, and then mail them to each of us using the Pony Express… that being so 18th century, and all.
Also, 4th amendment should now be limited to anything invented prior to 1776… no computer, TV, radio, car, telephone, etc… for you! Again, your constitutional rights only protect whatever existed AT THAT TIME!
Wow.
Comment of the Day!
“Making all firearms hold less than 4 rounds does nothing to infringe on your rights to own guns, but simply puts reasonable regulations on the gun itself.”
So we are being academically responsible, let us use clear and commonly held terminology.
It is actually called “the right to keep and bear arms”
Not the “right to own guns”. Yeehaw…
“As a society we have chosen to prepare and arm various standing armies to protect us against enemies foreign and domestic. We have the US Military, FBI, and the CIA. At the state level we have the National Guard, [State]BI and Highway Patrol/State Police.”
So, you are saying that, given that the differential between the state and its citizens is ALREADY overwhelming, lets make it more so? I think its big enough already.
If the FF’s were alive today, they would look at the last 100 years and say “I told you so!”.
The school shooting proves that the Army is not defending us from domestic enemies. It would be one thing if the shooter had killed some people and got clean away before the soldiers could react, but in this case, there were no soldiers there to react.
Eric’s diatribe is an all-too-typical leftist redefinition of history with the ultimate purpose of trashing, marginalizing and (eventually) liquidating the Constitution in favor of a “modern” (i.e. controlled) society. His references to the army of federal agencies- which he obviously considers a good thing- is pretty chilling.
First off: The Armed Forces (not to mention the CIA) are not supposed to be a factor in domestic legalities. Their purpose is to defend America from exterior threats. The FBI might have a legitimate role in the Sandy Hook tragedy, as the perpetrator committed murder and theft in one state, then travelled to another to inflict barbarity on children. But that’s really beside the point. The huge morass of extra-constitutional departments and agencies- plus their inevitable enforcement arms- have already marginalized the Constitution to the breaking point.
The framers knew full well that even the backbones of civil law enforcement- the elected county sheriffs- could not respond immediately to any major crime in progress; then or now. In a free society, the ultimate responsibility for defending life and property rests with the armed citizen. Police are hired professionals, but they are (at least, in theory) the servants of the citizens. Until they can arrive, the citizens must be prepared to act in their own self-defense. Otherwise, we indeed become “sheeple” and at the mercy of both the criminals and our guardians turned jailors.
Thereby- the 2nd Amendment. For defending America against threats to the citizens from within and without, it is indispensable. It’s ultimate accolade likely derived from the lips of an enemy still well known to many living Americans. “We could never invade America. There would be a gun behind every blade of grass.”- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
Michael, what it proves is, the State is not able to protect you 100% of the time, and protecting you and I at least partitally depends on…. you and I. That is not to say that the State does not have a role in public safety… it certainly does. I’m merely asserting that the responsibility for maintaining our health and safety primarily rests on individual initiative.
I think Eric has fallen into a trap set by “Tyrannosaurus Governmentus”, that being that the State will ALWAYS be there to protect you and give you whatever you need, no matter what: The State is totally benevolent and all-mighty! It will be a thousand year Reic…. er, I mean welfare state!
Moreover, I would add (and this is a very dangerous thing to say) that even a couple of million of gun-waving anarchists likely COULD thwart the government. They could barely handle ONE Waco, how would they handle a million AT ONCE? Furthermore, a bunch of guys in sandals with AK47’s managed to thwart the US Military in Vietnam and are giving us a run for our money in Afghanistan. There are 117 million gun owners in the US… imagine if only 2 or 3% of them decide they have had enough?
I love this thread… I think there is a good book idea here!
Iraq was a failure for the insurgents only because they turned on each other and the civilian population. If they had had a united front…
There are ways to thwart a government. Attack the banks so its employees can not get paid. Attack food and water supplies so that its employees would go hungry and thirsty. Attack rails and canals to impede transportation. If I had advised an insurgency against Hitler or Stalin, this advice is what I would give.
Ask the citizens of 1942 Lidice, Czechoslovakia just how well an insurgency against Hitler worked out.
There was no insurgency in Lidice.
Certainly not after the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich by operatives of the exiled Czech government. There wasn’t even a Lidice after that.
My point being, totalitarian states always remove guns from citizens.
The next point made by the gun-grabbers is this – Do you really think a modern Western democracy can be a tyranny or totalitarian?
Which leads to the next answer: Yes.
Pingback: Unethical Quote of the Month: The Washington Post | Ethics | Scoop.it