Let's Talk About Guns, Day 2

Rekindling our discussion from yesterday, I would like to speak about the meaning behind the 2nd Amendment. Remember, this amendment was hotly debated during the forming of the Constitution, and was in no means a slam-dunk. Again, there are those who have believed that others should be responsible for the defense of their homes and homeland for over 2000 years, so one should not have been surprised by the debate.

Samuel Adams, long before he was known for his beer, was a patriot of the first order. In his biography done by "R Meade" in 1969 he is quoted to have said: "The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them." (That Every Man Be Armed, p.62) Obviously, he felt strongly that if everyone had their own guns that they would of course defend themselves from those that would take away their rights, as well as any country that tried to take them over. Think of it like this--if a country of 20 million people have an army of 250,000, and the soldiers are the only ones with guns, then another country who has an army twice the size can be relatively assured of conquering the former country. However, if the country of 20 million people has an army of 250,000, and every household (assume 5 million) has at least one gun, it makes taking over that country a much greater challenge.

Thomas Paine, another great early American patriot said this: "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... (emphasis mine). (Ibid, p. 63) He, like most rational people, recognize that there are bad people out there who wish to do us harm while trying to better themselves (they think), and will do so if given the chance. Therefore, until everyone else chooses to willfully and without hesitation turn all of their weapons in, I'll just hold on to mine, thanks.

One of the most eloquent and complete narratives on the reason for a person to carry and own arms was written by an Italian Cesare Beccaria in 1794. In fact, Thomas Jefferson copied the following passage in its entirety in his "Common Place Book 314":
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience: that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed would put an end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that they guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative, but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." (On Crimes and Punishment, Cesare Beccaria, pp 87-88, H. Paolucci trans., 1963)

Is that not the same argument that we're having today with the "gun grabbers"? Are we still not saying that passing gun laws only serves to encourage those that respect no law, and increases the incidence of crime? IS IT NOT THOSE PLACES THAT HAVE THE STRICTEST GUN LAWS THAT ALSO HAVE THE HIGHEST RATES OF CRIME?? How could that possibly be, if these laws worked?? The simple fact is, those people who advocate strict control of guns also advocate "big brother" government, whether they recognize it or not. They might as well be saying "I don't want to be responsible for my own defense; therefore, please protect me." This is a very dangerous and exceptionally foolish point of view. Most of the American populace doesn't know that the government has NO duty to protect individuals. NONE. This has been contested in the courts for over 150 years, and the Supreme Court has stated time and again that the police ONLY have a duty to protect the citizenry at large. Don't believe me? Look it up.

My friends that dislike guns believe that there should be no guns. Well, one might as well wish that there were no mosquitoes. The fact that one is afraid of them, or hates their destructive power, or feels that they are too dangerous, or whatever, has no bearing on the fact that they exist; and as long as they exist I want to make sure that I have the ability to defend myself against another that has them. Again, I respect their individual decisions not to own or shoot firearms and/or protect themselves, that is entirely their decision. The problem is, there are thousands like them that don't respect mine, and a good number of them are in Congress.

Let's continue this chat tomorrow, methinks I am beginning to rant...

Let's Talk About Guns

Let's start out by saying I love guns. I've had guns most of my adolescent and adult life and have shot guns of all kinds starting with a bb gun when I was a kid, to various hunting rifles and shotguns. I am by no means an expert shot, nor am I an expert on guns as a whole, but am simply a gun lover, and the older I get the more it seems that I appreciate guns for what they are: tools to be used, no different than my circular saw, my chain saw, or my hammer. Each has a specific purpose and use, and so do my guns.

I never owned a handgun prior to moving to Utah (aka "The Wild West"), mostly because getting a handgun in Iowa is, what I thought, a real pain in the butt. It's certainly not impossible, but when I lived there one had to go to the sheriff's office, submit to a 3-day background check and waiting period, and then you might be given a permit to purchase a handgun. Here in Planet Utah, one goes to a gun store (or gun show), purchases their chosen weapon, goes through an instant background check by the FBI, purchases their ammo, and walks out of the store. I actually bought my first handgun, a S&W .40 caliber semi-auto, at a gun show out here and went through the exact scenario that I just described, except that I also purchased a gun cleaning kit. Excited, I went home and told my wife what I had just bought, and suggested that we go do some target shooting, which she promptly agreed to do. Now, it just happens that my beautiful wife used to shoot competitively for Glock, which as we all know is a very fine maker of semi-automatic handguns. Well, after shooting for some time I was hitting the target, but the little orange dot in the middle of the target had absolutely no fear of me. My beautiful wife asked if she could try it to which I agreed (thinking that she of course would do no better). I was wrong... Her first shot went dead-center in the middle of the bullseye. Stunned, I stood there and looked for a second verifying that my eyes were not lying to me, then promptly said "That's it. I'm done." and turned around to go home. My lovely wife just smiled at me and said nothing...

Since my initial purchase (and subsequent humiliation), I've purchased a small .32 caliber for my wife to carry, and a .45 caliber Colt that I like to keep in my car (we both have concealed weapons permits). Unlike my .40, I love my .45 and am actually a pretty darn good shot with it.

Now, to my point. I am a true believer in the right to bear arms, and have done some study on the subject. Interestingly, this is not a subject that is taught in school, and to get to the truth of the 2nd Amendment one needs to do a fair amount of searching for some trustworthy and credible sources. Naturally, the NRA has a fair amount of information on the subject, but there are some better sources if one looks elsewhere. I strongly suggest "That Every Man Be Armed" by Stephen Halbrook, which is an outstanding and well-researched book on the history of self defense and the evolution of our 2nd Amendment.

What is very interesting to me, and I presume to those that have studied this amendment, is that the history of self-defense goest back to debates 2000 years old with Aristotle and Plato, and later with Cicero. There have been those that believe that, even in Roman times and before, the government should be the only people with arms, and that the government should be the ones in charge of defending the people--that is, that the people have no right to defend themselves. The difference between the United States and the rest of the world is that our right to bear arms was explicitly stated in our Constitution. If one looks at the 9th and 10th Amendments, they state that individual rights, not specified in the first few amendments "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively", these amendments have largely been forgotten and overcome with the continued (unlawful and unconstitutional) expansion of the federal government. Is there any doubt that had the 2nd Amendment not been explicit in its intent, that nobody in this country could own a gun? I think not.

As to the wording of the amendment: "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." There have been many debates, some of which I have been involved with personally, where it is typical that one person (or side of the debate) has absolutely no clue as to the history of the amendment. They will generally say something to the effect of: "It states clearly of a Militia", saying then that the National Guard typically fulfills the militia requirement. The problem with that argument is that it is completely false of any rational logic, and anyone that has done any serious study on this issue would have to agree completely. There are numerous references throughout the debates on the Constitution where the "militia" was understood to be the "people", typically males between 16 and 60 that could carry a weapon to use for the defense of their homeland. If one does some research they will find that all of the states had "militias" consisting of anyone and everyone that fit the description. Anyone who denies this is either ignorant of the facts, or a liar, or both.

I have friends who abhor guns, and wish that guns did not exist in the world. I respect their opinions, however foolish I believe them to be. Unfortunately, there are thousands like them that have never held a gun, much less fired a gun, and to whom guns are a source of fear. These are the people that promote gun bans for everyone except those people they hire to protect themselves (Rosie O'donnell comes to mind). It's funny--"nobody should have a gun unless they're here to protect me." Not, "everyone should be encouraged to learn about guns so that they can make an intelligent choice about protecting themselves and their families."

I'll continue this rant tomorrow... I realize it's getting a little long. In the mean time, if you have comments please feel free to post.

Ramasart

Hello everyone,

Since this is my first blog, I'm quite sure that nobody is listening, but I've got a few things to get off of my chest....

First, let's talk about Terry Schindler (Shiavo). This poor woman is suffering a hurtful and wrongful death at the hands of her horrific husband. Worst of all, our current legal system is completely out of control and is allowing this murder to happen in front of the world. Oh yes, the liberals will cry that she wanted this, and that it's just a family affair, to which the rest of this country should rise up and cry out "BULLSHIT"!! Why are we not doing this? Simple. We have an oligarchy in our government of judges, and they continue to drive this country into ruin.

200 years ago a partriot named Andrew Jackson snubbed his nose at the Supreme Court of these United States, and told the judges to enforce their own ruling. Naturally, they could not because they have no authority outside of their own courtroom. However, some time between then and now, this country has raised the status of judges to a place just below God Almighty himself. "The judges know what's best", so whatever the judges say is the law of the land. Again, we need people to stand up and cry out "BULLSHIT!!!" These judges are nothing more than radical attorneys who support the demise of this great country. You think I'm out of my mind? Look at some of the things that have been decided by our wonderful Supreme Court in the past few years-- A computer drawing of a 1-year-old female having sex with a freak is OK because nobody is getting hurt. WHAT?? Please!! How deranged does one need to be to say nobody gets hurt by such filthy crap?? How far do we stretch the 1st Amendment before someone comes out and says the Supreme Court has gone crazy? Then, they turn around and revoke parts of the 1st Amendment by saying that the McCain-Feingold law that bars POLITICAL FREE SPEECH against a single politician during a campaign is OK!! WHAT??? The founding fathers MUST be turning over in their graves. WHAT THE HELL DOES THE COURT THINK THE 1ST AMENDMENT WAS DESIGNED FOR?? Perverts who want to molest children, or persons who wish to change the entrenched politburo that we've ended up with? Frankly, I've lost all hope in the interpretations of the communists in our courtrooms, especially those on the federal bench.

Getting back to Terry Schindler now, frankly I think Jeb Bush is a coward not to step in and stop this madness. Let the judge enforce his own ruling!! It's the Governor's job to enforce the rulings of the courts, so WHY NOT TAKE ACTION WHILE THERE'S STILL TIME!! It will never happen, simply because the Bush brothers are both trying to play both sides of this game and neither of them has a spine--let the woman die, who cares as long as their political ambitions are satisfied. I am ashamed of both of them, and ashamed that I supported the elder in the last campaign. In this case both have been equated with Pontius Pilate, and while I think that Terry Schindler is a far cry from Jesus, both are (were) innocent and convicted wrongly, while the political powers stood by and did nothing except to try to convince everyone that they did everything they could to prevent the torture. Thanks Jeb. Thanks George. I hope you're both very proud of yourselves. Frankly, I hope hell is real and you both have to explain your inaction in this case to the Almighty.

Please feel free to disagree with me, I'm a true believer that everyone has a right and a responsibility to express their own opinions. And, even though I might personally think you're stupid for thinking a certain way, I wouldn't attempt to stop someone from their fair say (unlike the politically correct crowd who will shout you down if you disagree).

Lastly, I would strongly recommend those of you who do agree with me to read a couple of books by "Boston T. Party"--Molon Labe, and Boston's Gun Bible. I think you will find the books interesting, at the very least. You can find them on Amazon.com

More soon,

Ramasart