Let's Talk About Guns, Once More

It's been a few days since my last post, and so I would like to make a few more points and then move on...

The discussion of guns and the history of guns (good and bad) in this country is doomed to continue ad-infinitum, simply because there will always be those that don't want the responsibililty to protect themselves and their families, while there are others of us who would not have it any other way. That is, some people obviously feel that the police are there for the sole purpose of protecting them, and others that state that "nobody is more capable of defending myself or my family than I am, as nobody cares about them the way I do and therefore would not go to the ends that I would in protecting those I love". It may be a bit simplistic, but I believe those to be the two main camps in the gun debate--there are others that are in the debate simply to gain power, but they tend to be a handful of politicians (that need to be voted out of office by their brainless, spineless, populace. And yes, if you live in one of those districts, I'm speaking to you.)

What I would like to do now is to widen the discussion somewhat. If one looks at the history of this country, it is obvious that the guns of the 18th century were not exactly of the same caliber (no pun intended) of those that we have today. What the people of 1776 had were guns that were exactly like the British troops had, flintlocks of various calibers that put out a huge puff of smoke when fired, giving away one's position. These are in fact what our people took into battle to overturn the "rule of law" (if you will), of a tyrant. Now, just suppose that modern weapons of war were available to both sides (for simplicity, let's discuss only the firearms and sidearms of today) at the time of Lexington-Concord. Does one not suppose that both sides would have used semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons (of various calibers) in their battles? I think not. Everyone would have used any and all means available to them to win the war, and I think to argue differently would be stupid.

Now, let's move forward to 1789 and the debates on the Constitution... Does one not agree that the 2nd Amendment would have been worded in such a way that the "militia" of the time would have available to them the same weaponry that the British army had? Does one think that the founding fathers would have limited the weapons available to the very people that had just fought and won the war?? I think not. Think about this--the 2nd Amendment was specifically designed so that in the event our government once again became tyrannical in its character that the militia had the right to overtake it, thereby to make it once again respond to the will of the people. Frankly, I think it is entirely conceivable that the founders of this country would have insisted that the same weapons that were available to the government be available to the people, so that they would not have a severe disadvantage in overtaking the government again. (I just don't think that they had the foresight to see what has happened.)

Now, with modern weaponry this becomes a huge debate when one considers the various missles, bombs, etc., that modern armies have available, considering their destructive capabilities (especially atomic and nuclear weapons). Frankly, the LAST thing that I would want is a handful of pissed off (fill in the blank)s with atomic weapons of any kind. However, I think it makes for an interesting debate. Should Joe Average American citizen have the RIGHT to own whatever type of firearm he desires? Bottom line...I think so, and I think that the founding fathers would agree. However, I also think there is a reasonableness measure that needs to be added to the debate. Such things as a prior history of violence against innocents with a weapon certainly come to mind, and having the mental capacity significantly above a walnut would seem to be desireable. The problem is, what is reasonable and prudent in one person's mind is a huge stumbling block to others. I'm sure there are mental walnuts that would feel that my assessment is discriminatory to them, to which I would reply: "TFB". (I'm not politically correct, and feel no need to be. Frankly, if someone is an idiot I think we do them a disservice in not letting them know that they're an idiot.) If someone has a history of violence, especially with weapons, then I think it reasonable to keep them from owning them again. Maybe if they show for a period of 20 years or so that they are capable of being non-violent in their actions then MAYBE they get the right to own a firearm. (I know people that in extreme circumstances have inflicted serious pain on another and went to prison, whom I think are prone to no more violence than the average citizen.) I'm sure there are other ideas that would be in keeping with my premise, but the fact is, I think that as a rule, people should be able to own whatever firearm they choose. Period. (With limited governmental interruption.)

I am sure that any liberal reading this would consider me to be out of my mind even suggesting that the average citizen be allowed to own a fully-automatic (whatever). The reason they feel that way, in my opinion, is because they esteem themselves to be above the common man. They feel that they are intellectually above "those commoners" (though they would never use those words), and while they would trust THEMSELVES with such weapons (though they would never touch one), only a certified nutcase would even consider such things. Frankly, that's why I believe (in Michael Savage's words) "liberalism is a mental disorder". I guess I missed my calling, because while I seem to have a reasonable intelligence quotient, I am a staunch conservative. I have some Libertarian blood running through me, but I am a true believer in a small government and protection of our "borders, language, and culture" (to again steal from Michael Savage). I don't believe in open borders (there's fodder for another blog), I don't believe in undisciplined capitalism, and I don't believe a word that comes from Ted Kennedy's mouth (sober or not). {The fact is, his father made his money running rum and guns, was as corrupt as anyone who ever lived (and twice as powerful), and all of the Kennedy's are far overdue whatever horrible things engulf them--as far as I'm concerned. (Sorry, there goes that politically incorrect surge again....)} I know.....tell me what you really think. Right?

Bottom line, I think that the federal government has far outstripped its bounds in any number of ways, but in terms of guns in general and handguns in particular, they have no authority to regulate what anyone owns. They overstepped their bounds in the 30's, again in 1968, and again with the (now defunct) Clinton gun ban.

Semper Ingenuus, Semper Liberera!!

(look it up) :-)