Questions and answers in the gun rights gun control debate

After the tragic Connecticut school shooting, every news media outlet covered gun control, with many journalists being anti-gun.  Within several days, much of the media stopped having debates because they realized the gun-control position was logically indefensible.  Here is why:

—Question:  Why would any citizen need an “assault weapon” or 30-round magazines?

Answer:  To fulfill the purpose of the Second Amendment – defense against tyranny.  The Second Amendment is not a quick word about hunting in between nine other rights that limit government powers.  The founders recognized man’s greed for power, and set up balance of power in the Constitution, between the three branches of the federal government, between the federal government and the states, and between government and the people via the Second Amendment.  To deter tyranny, people must be able to balance governmental power, and single-shot or hunting rifles cannot do that.  “Assault” is the name of a crime given to inanimate objects by those with an agenda to mislead and bias those who are uneducated about firearms, when they are talking about essentially all semi-automatic firearms, which are 90% of firearms in the United States.

—Question:  How do we know this?

Answer:  An interpretation that gives a law effect in fulfilling its purpose is always accepted over one that does not effect its purpose.  The purpose of the Second Amendment is clear: “Necessary to the security of a “free” state”.  A strong military is necessary to the security of any state, even a totalitarian state.  However, a “free” state, requires a balance of power between citizens and government.  While clear from the language alone and common sense, other writings from Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams, Hamilton and others support this definition.

—Question:  How do we know they weren’t talking about the militia as the military?

Answer:  Because the militia and military can be controlled by the government, and it would defeat the purpose, defense against a tyrannical government.  Interpretations of law that give language effect are always more valid than those that have give language no purpose.  The wisdom of the Second Amendment is to balance power by distributing the only real power amongst all the people, who have not had a chance to be corrupted by power like those in authority and government, and thereby making power fluid, instead of monopolized.

—Question:  So should citizens own tanks, planes?

Answer:  Nobody is talking about those – don’t distort our argument.  We are only discussing semi-automatic weapons.  Fully automatic weapons are already banned.  Semi-automatic rifles are absolutely necessary to fulfill the purpose of the Second Amendment, because its purpose cannot be fulfilled with bolt-action and single-shot rifles.  Allowing the government to regulate the right until the only firearms “allowed” are incapable of achieving its purpose of defending against tyranny is antithetical to its purpose, and therefore void as unconstitutional.   George Washington said in his State of the Union speech in 1790, ”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them…”

—Question:  What if some believe we could never defeat the American military with those weapons anyway?

Answer:  The argument that we may not succeed in protecting freedom, so therefore we should not even try, does not make sense.  Many will always feel freedom is worth fighting for.  Additionally, a hundred million patriotic, Constitution-loving gun owning citizens are a powerful deterrent to a would-be tyrant in control of a two million person army.  The U.S. military could barely control Iraq.

—Question:  What if we believe Tyranny cannot happen in the U.S.?

Answer:  Greed has not been erased from the hearts of men.  Dictatorships, genocides, world wars, holocausts and other horrors plague all of history.  The rest of the world continues to have these problems, while the U.S. does not, and Americans repeatedly have to go bail out out the rest of the “civilized’ “unarmed” world every few years because of their genocides and dictatorships and killing.  History is not magically over, but will repeat itself.  Our American democratic institutions will all fall to armed soldiers, as institutions have in Nazi Germany, and all other places.

—Question: So the whole world should be armed?

Answer:  Yes, and it would be a much better place.  The Hutus would not have slaughtered 800,000 Tutsies in Rwanda if both were armed.  Hitler could not have killed 6 million armed Jews, because the political cost of losing so many soldiers would have been so great, that the Holocaust could not have happened.  In Syria, if the people had arms, they would have overthrown Assad already, and we would not have to worry about the blame from arming the wrong terrorist group.  In Iran, if the people had arms, the 2009 election would not have been stolen by an armed minority, they could overthrow that minority, and they may not have a nuclear weapons program today.  In Iraq, if the Iraqi people had the Second Amendment, the dictator Saddam might have been overthrown by their own people, and we would not have had to go to war there.   In Mexico, if the people had arms, the drug cartels would not have a monopoly on power. The cartels aren’t powerful because they have guns, but because only they have guns.  If they did not have this monopoly on power, citizens could start defending their own neighborhoods, the politicians wouldn’t only fear the cartels but the people also, power would balance, and the Mexican people would have their country back.

—Question: What about peaceful resistance like MLK or Ghandi?

Answer:  It didn’t work during the holocaust – everyone who resisted was executed on site.  That’s what mass graves are for.  Even Gandi said, “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

—Question: So your answer is more guns (on the street/in schools)?

Answer: Don’t distort the argument – not more guns “on the street” or “in schools” but possessed by law-abiding trained citizens, doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, fireman, and other responsible members of society.

—Question: Why shouldn’t we ban guns?

Answer: Because then only the criminals, terrorists, dictators, tyrants, gang members, and drug dealers and rapists will have them all.  Making guns illegal do not deter those whose primary activities are already illegal anyway.  Guns only give such people a bigger advantage over their victims if they are unarmed.  By making guns illegal, you are making effective self-defense illegal.  You are making criminals out of law-abiding citizens who wish nothing more than to defend themselves, their families, and their free country.  If you ban guns, you give people a self-preservation motive to commit crimes.  If you do the opposite, and allow guns except when someone is a criminal, you give a self-presevation motive to NOT commit crimes.

—Question: How do you know there wont be less guns in bad guys’ hands?

Answer: Banning inanimate objects for which there is a criminal demand has never not work – look at the war on drugs.  The bad guys throughout history have always had guns, and history will not magically change.  The only thing you can do to have balance, and deterrent to crime, by letting the good guys have them also.  There is safety with balance of power, and with a ban, by definition, only criminals will have them.

—Question: What about England where “gun murders” are much lower?

Answer:  Their violent crime rate is much higher than ours, and their rate of “hot” burglaries (when the victim is home) is higher because burglars know the victims cannot defend themselves.  The phrase “gun murders” hides those instances such as being nearly beaten to death in one’s own home, raped, and have all of one’s possessions taken or destroyed.  England, after registering firearms, banned them, and now they have banned public protests, and there are suggestions that the media should be controlled.  Such is the natural order of government increasing its power over people – gun rights must be the first to go.

—Question: Shouldn’t We at least try to do something?

Answer: While rampage shootings are highly publicized, and those stopped by armed citizens are not covered by the media, America still has very low crime.  Gun bans didn’t work in Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C., Mexico, in gun free zones, or during the holocaust.  There is every indication that making guns illegal will only empower the criminals, terrorists, and tyrants who will have them by taking away the deterrence and balance of power of an armed society.  We propose armed guards/teachers, education, and mental health system improvements.  While America has 11,000 gun homicides per year, that is small compared to the 250,000,000 people who died from gun control-preceded genocide by their own governments committed just this past century.

—Question: Why not register and track all firearms?

Answer:  Today, only law-abiding citizens can purchase them because of our background check system.  Registration has preceded confiscation everywhere, and would dramatically change the Constitutional balance of power in favor of the federal government.  Canada had a registration system, spent billions of dollars, and after years, not a single crime could be traced to a registered firearm, so they disbanded the system a complete failure and waste of money.  Unless this government is bent on confiscation and dictatorship, it has a lot better things to spend money on than limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

—Question: But doesn’t the Constitution allow for reasonable regulation?

Answer:  The Constitution says, shall not be infringed.  Once you allow infringement, it’s like the camel’s nose under the tent.  Then the government wants to ban semi-autos, and then all guns, because after banning one firearm, all that needs to happen under this wrong logic, is for someone to commit a crime using a different, unbanned firearm.  Even if “reasonable” regulation were allowed, giving a tool for confiscation to the government is contrary to the purpose of the Second Amendment.

—Question: Why not close the gun show loophole and require background checks in all cases?

Answer:  The gun show loophole is actually the non-requirement for background checks when the person is not a dealer of firearms and only sells perhaps one firearm per year, for instance, to a friend, another person, or family member.  Closing the gun show loophole would make every gun transaction contingent on federal government approval, which like other gun sales, it would simply deny if it ever became tyrannical.

—Question: Why not have stiff penalties for carrying guns near schools?

Answer: This only affects law-abiding citizens.  No person who is about to commit mass murder cares about a law that bans coming within 1000 feet of a school.  The only people this catches are law-abiding citizens, who have a license or lawful need to carry, because it is difficult to know where every school is, and many cannot get from home to work or the shooting range without passing within 1000 feet of a school, unknowingly.

—Question:  Why not pass a law for mental health checks?

Answer:  No gun owner wants insane people to have guns.  Mentally unstable people already cannot purchase firearms under the law, when they are in a refusal database.  The problem is, the mental health profession fails to report these people.  There should be a system for reporting such people, and for these people to be determined fit or unfit by a neutral professional.

—Question:  Why not have everyone go through a mental health check to decide who is worthy?

Answer:  Because the people administering these, especially connected to the government or paid by the government, are likely to be so anti-gun, that they would label everyone who wants a firearm automatically paranoid and therefore not fit to have one.  Sheriffs in most counties in California that have similar discretion in deciding whom to grant permits to based on who has good moral character, or good cause, have consistently granted permits to only those in government, contributors to their campaigns, the rich and famous, and denied them to everyone else.   Every system that has such discretion has lended itself to abuse, and would result in stricter and stricter thresholds at each instance of violence until nearly nobody passes.  The whole point of the Second Amendment is that government cannot decide and restrict, because the power exists to balance government.

—Question: Why not just pass some law with some reasonable-sounding restrictions?

Answer:  Because the media will discuss 2-3 reasonable-sounding points, (same as with the 2000-page healthcare law) and meanwhile there will be many other restrictions which are not even discussed, which will subvert the Constitutional intent of the Second Amendment.  Any law will have politically-biased language contrary to the Constitution such as, “the people have determined these weapons are dangerous and there is no legitimate hunting or sporting use for these weapons” misleading people and the courts about the true purpose of these weapons, defense against tyranny.

—Question: Why isn’t it ok to have a law that specifically exempts certain firearms from the ban?

Because the government will narrow the field from being able to have any weapon, to only one, two or three from a certain caliber.  Many of the guns “allowed” are single shot hunting rifles, and such legislation lays the groundwork for the next wave of legislation the next time there is a shooting with one of these “allowed” weapons.   It makes the few remaining manufacturers of these weapons targets of politicians, media, and the activist minority who do not understand the Constitution, who will organize boycotts and other protests designed to put the last remaining few manufacturers out of business.  They will be demonized the same way the Bushmaster is demonized now, even though many congressmen, doctors, lawyers, and law-abiding citizens own them.

—Question: What do you say to people who want to ban guns anyway and do not believe any of this?

Answer:  Let’s try it somewhere, and see if it works, before we do it to the whole country. We can try a total gun ban in Washington D.C., or Chicago, or Detroit, and see if crime increases or decreases.  Let the states choose and follow what works, instead of forcing everyone to follow a potential system that may be logically flawed.

—Question:  Isn’t it possible that liberals simply hate guns?

Answer: No, people hate guns because they are uneducated, uninformed, did not grow up with the culture, and do not have an understanding of history and human nature.  The liberal anti-gun arguments are logically flawed.  One cannot argue for women’s reproductive decision rights, and at the same time say a woman does not have the right to protect herself against rape.  Deciding she cannot have a gun essentially says it is better that a woman is raped than a rapist be shot.  Most people do not feel that way once exposed to the point.


If you have a counter-point, please post it, and I will respond with the correct argument.  Unfortunately, much of the media have been preventing the discussion from getting to the truth.  My question to the media is, why are you not covering these explanations?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Gun Control Media Manipulation Terminology

Each of us should stop and think of how the media manipulates us in how they cover gun control in the news.

1.  “Assault weapon” – An “assault” is a crime, and a tort, constituting either an attempted battery, or the intentional placing someone in fear of an attempted battery.  (A “battery” is an intentional harmful or offensive contact, whether with a fist or bullet.)

Politicians and the media have accepted this phrase “assault weapon” and with it, put the name of a crime in the definition of a tool – a tool necessary for defending democracy.  This manipulates every time someone says this phrase, or hears it, without realizing this analysis.  This phrase suggests this tool has no legitimate purpose, in direct contradiction of its necessity in defending our democracy against tyranny.  Why don’t we call them “patriot weapons” from now on?

2.  “Gunman” – a gunman is just a man with a gun, per its own terms.  This word however, is used to represent an active shooter.  It manipulates by suggesting that any man with a gun, is a threat and potential active shooter.  It sidelines that millions of men with guns, gunmen, are good guys, who carry firearms at all times either with no incident, or helping to preserve the peace and public safety.

3.  “Guns off the streets” – the guns are not on the streets, and criminal possession of guns is already illegal.  They are in the possession of law-abiding citizens, and locked away in their homes.  This “guns of the streets” phrase is used to blur in people’s minds two separate things: 1) law abiding citizens possessing guns, and 2) criminals on the street where we walk with our families with guns.

I will think about how to overcome this manipulation of the truth, other than publicizing these points.  Please share any thoughts.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

“Gun control debate”

We let our children die, not when we fail to seize every tool of freedom in a free country, but when we fail to heed the warnings of the wisest of us, about human nature, about man’s eternal greed for power, and the need for balance of power between man and his government.  We let our children die when we let the wisdom of our forefathers die.

The Second Amendment is not a quick word about hunting in between nine other rights that limit government powers.  It is a right of the “people” that government cannot take away, because it must remain “uninfringed” to balance government’s power, as is “necessary to the security of a ‘free’ state.”

Does everyone agree with that?

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.“ – Adolph Hitler.

But is gun control really necessary for tyranny by a minority?

“One man with a gun can control 100 without one” – Vladimir Lenin.

But why do we need “assault weapons?”

“The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson.

But really dangerous high-capacity weapons?

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them…”  – George Washington, State of the Union speech, 1790.

Can we really trust the American people with these weapons?

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” – James Madison.

Why not reasonable restrictions?

“Any society that will give up a little freedom to gain a little security will deserve neither, and lose both.” – Benjamin Franklin.

But what if government says gun freedom isn’t necessary?

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” – George Washington.

What do guns tell us about human nature?

“Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.” – Thomas Jefferson.


“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun.”  Chairman Mao Tse Tung.

Since when?

“Only an armed peoplecan be truly free. Only an unarmed people can ever be enslaved.” – Aristotle.

So what?

“America will never be destroyed from the outside.  If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” – Abraham Lincoln.

But what if I’m not a Republican?

“By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the 2nd amendment, will ever be a major danger to our Nation, the amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the 2nd Amendment will always be important.”  – John F. Kennedy.

Can’t we trust gun control proponents?

“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” – Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc., In a letter to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

How do we protect our rights?

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it away.”  – Thomas Jefferson.

But isn’t history over?

“Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.” – Thomas Jefferson.

How bad is gun control?

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” – Mahatma Ghandi.

What is the right thing to do?

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” – The Dalai Lama.

What if we get this wrong?

“Those who do not know history are destined to repeat it.” – Edmund Burke, the philosophical founder of modern political conservatism.

During WWII, six million people were marched into a gas chamber by armed soldiers.  If they each had an assault weapon, the political cost to Hitler would have been so great that the Holocaust might not have happened.  The Second Amendment is about human nature, and will always apply, whether in Rwanda, Bosnia, Armenia, Stalinist USSR, North Korea, Cambodia, China, or Iran in 2009, or Syria in 2012.  It always starts with gun control with the excuse of “public safety.”

Be proud of a country that cannot be invaded, that cannot be conquered, and cannot be taken over by a tyrant.  Be proud of a country that doesn’t have the genocides and world wars that plague the rest of the “unarmed” world.  Don’t let the government change the 200-year balance of power, and consolidate power by taking away our effective weapons. If we are wrong, we face 11,000 gun murders a year.  If they are wrong, we face a century like the last one, in which 250,000,000 people were killed by their own governments.

If government has a monopoly on force, nobody will be able to stop the next tyrant.  When the soldiers have guns to their own heads, and receive misinformation, and have to enforce oppressive laws or die, most will do the same as all other human beings have, and help carry out the genocide.  Weakening this nation to make a dictator’s takeover easier is treason.  Remind law enforcement, military, and politicians that they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Socialism, fascism, and totalitarian Communism have proven themselves to lead to population control through the extermination of millions.  Contact your senators, representatives, politicians, the media, and hollywood.     We explain the first Hitler and Holocaust by saying humanity learned its lesson.  I can explain a crazy person to my kids.  How do I explain that humanity forgot history, ignored human nature, gave up the Second Amendment, and repeated history’s horrors yet again, like sheep disarming themselves to be slaughtered, or lemmings jumping off a cliff?

share this

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Winning the Gun Control Debate, Finally





– Winning the gun control debate, finally


The Second Amendment is not a quick word about hunting in between nine other rights that limit government powers.  


The Second Amendment is about human nature.  Power naturally corrupts, and to remedy that, instead of concentrating power with the few in government, it distributes power amongst all the people who have not had the chance to be corrupted.  It is “necessary to the security of a ‘free’ state.”  As horrific as shooting tragedies are, a well-armed society deters the holocausts, genocides and dictatorships in which millions die, that the rest of the world experiences every few decades, but armed America does not. 


Why do we need “assault weapons?”  “To protect against the horrors of history’s genocides, dictatorships, and holocausts.”  Thomas Jefferson said, “the strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  This answer makes most gun control arguments irrelevant; including the delusion that criminals are not deterred, or cannot be stopped, by armed, trained citizens.  


Benjamin Franklin said, “any society that will give up a little freedom to gain a little security will deserve neither, and lose both.”  


“Assault” rifles deter and prevent tyranny.  They balance the government’s power with the people’s, with similar arms.  George Washington said in his State of the Union speech in 1790, ”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them…”  The Second Amendment reads, “Necessary to the security of a free state…”  While a strong military is necessary to the security of any state, a “free” state requires a balance to governmental power in the hands of the people.  It needs no legal interpretation because it is written for the people.  Politicians’ suggestions that “bear” arms doesn’t mean “bear”, or “infringed” doesn’t mean “infringed” are legal gymnastics.  


To this, the gun control advocates argue two responses.


First, they say the Second Amendment is outdated as we live in modern times, and the federal government would never become tyrannical.  They dismiss our founding fathers’ concerns as right-wing paranoia, but do not explain why history’s string of horrors would magically cease from this point forward.  It is a delusion based on the relative peace they have enjoyed in their lifetime of personal experience overriding the history they learn second-hand and believe they are better than.  Ironically, some of this delusion also comes from man’s same need for power, and the belief by an empowered-feeling liberal media, that a dictator would not dare try to take power on their watch.  The suggestion that a would-be dictator could outsmart, beguile, or win the favor of the liberal media, and that “bible-clinging and gun-toting” republicans would have to step in and save this country offends the liberal view of themselves as being in charge. 


The Second Amendment is based on an understanding of human nature, which does not change.  The founders set up a living framework to prevent tyranny indefinitely.  It was not limited to Britain or the 1700’s, the same as free speech will always be needed, because those in power will always try to silence opposing views.  Man’s greed for power, and absolute power’s capacity to corrupt absolutely, will not change.  Leaders do whatever they can get away with, 200 years ago, and 200 years from now.  


The Holocaust was only 60 years ago in “modern, educated, cultured” Germany.  Since then, after we said “never again”, we sat by and watched genocides in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Dharfur.  We see this happen elsewhere, and often fail to connect the Second Amendment as the reason why Americans do not suffer the plagues of the rest of the world.  We assume we are so brilliant and evolved, that we are naturally and inexplicably the bastion of democratic stability, repeatedly saving the rest of the “civilized” (and disarmed) world from itself.  Now, it is ironic that the Second Amendment, the very idea that preserves our democracy, is so effective at making America a keystone of global freedom, that we have the luxury of almost forgetting its purpose as the safety-net for our freedom.  We must not forget. 


The Second Amendment applies always, everywhere.  If the Syrian people had a Second Amendment, Assad might be long gone, and we would not be trying to figure out which terrorist group to avoid arming and empowering.  If the Mexican people had a Second Amendment, the politicians would not only fear the cartels, the people’s power relative to criminals and corrupt politicians would increase, and the Mexican people would, in time, reclaim their country, leading to less violence.  And, if the Iranian people had a Second Amendment, their 2009 popular revolution might not have been crushed by an armed minority, and they might not have a nuclear weapons program today.  The fate of every nation eventually comes down to the weaponry that the common and descent citizens have.   


The bad guys are not powerful because they have guns.  The bad guys are powerful when ONLY they have guns.  Throughout history, the bad guys have always been able to obtain arms.  What the Second Amendment says is, the good guys ALSO have them. 


The second argument that gun control advocates make is that assault rifles would be useless against a dictator-controlled U.S. military anyway, so why bother to try to fight for freedom.  Maybe for an individual yes, but in the aggregate, a society of 100 million armed patriots is a powerful deterrent to any would-be tyrant.  Our U.S. military is only 2 million strong, and any dictator’s forces would be outnumbered 50 to 1, not counting those patriots siding with the Constitution.  It would not be fought on a battlefield either, but house to house, like Iraq, which the U.S. military could barely control.  Such a citizenry is far too powerful for a centralized government to exert absolute local control over.  In WWII, if 6 million Jews each had a rifle, the political cost to Hitler would have been too great, for losing soldiers at every house, and the Holocaust could never have happened.  


Hitler was smarter though, and is quoted as saying, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.“  On November 11, 1938, the day after Kristallnacht, Hitler started his genocide campaign by passing the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938, barring Jews from owning firearms or other weapons.  After his opposition was disarmed and helpless, he easily changed all the other laws, and then went door to door rounding them up.  In theory he couldn’t do that, but in practicality nobody could stop him.  Hitler, by the way, was a leftist.  He developed the National Socialist German Workers Party Platform, and quoted in 1927 as saying, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” 


Another gun control argument is not really an argument, but a questioning of the limitations of the Second Amendment.  Some ask whether civilians should have nuclear weapons, fighter jets and tanks.  First, when the Constitution was written, it was not uncommon for colonists to own cannons.  But the test, as George Washington laid out, is “sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them.”  This, by necessity, means balance of governmental power with “assault weapons.”  While the military has fully automatic weapons, the people need at least semi-automatic civilian versions to achieve that Constitutional purpose.   


The key component of dictatorship is monopoly on effective force.  Without it, dictatorship cannot exist.  This is what gun control advocates unknowingly push for.  After an assault weapons ban, the government can easily disarm the remaining few with hunting rifles.  That is why we can never give up assault weapons.  Not just because it is a slippery slope, although it is, but because such laws suggest acceptance of the belief that guns are the enemy, which leads to increasingly easier new gun restrictions every time another crime occurs.  Any gun control law will falsely proclaim that the people have determined and accepted that these weapons do more harm than good and have no legitimate purpose, ignoring that assault weapons are necessary for preserving democracy.  Because the purpose of the Second Amendment is defense against tyranny, it would be nonsensical to require a potentially tyrannical government’s permission to buy a firearm or ammunition, which it could simply deny.  While no Supreme Court opinion is needed to understand any of this, the Court has confirmed that banning an entire class of weapons is suspect. 


Britain banned assault weapons, and soon all weapons were confiscated, followed by a ban on public protests in London, followed by a judge’s suggestion that there be a system in place to control the news media. Just like the rich get richer over time, governments get more powerful over time, and with the passage of more laws.  Politicians will take more and more power, and in time create a society like George Orwell’s “1984.”  The transfer of increasing power to government is the certain and natural result of human nature.


Understanding human nature, Thomas Jefferson said, “those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.”  The only solution is an un-“infringed” Second Amendment.  It is the most fundamental balance of power that exists in the Constitution.  The only solution for limiting human greed for power, is to balance it with another human’s need for power.  The Constitution balances power between the three branches of the federal government, and the between the federal government and the states.  But even more fundamental is the balance of power between the federal government and the people in the Second Amendment – and the balance must not be tipped. 


Chairman Mao Tse Tung said, “all political power comes from the barrel of a gun,” and whether we like it or not, he was correct.  Human nature and history show us that gun control will only wet the appetites of those in power.  Government can, in small steps, take away the Second Amendment, and then the rest of our freedoms.  Activists, politicians, journalists and judges will eventually be threatened with loss of jobs, prosecution or worse, Internet will be monitored, and new detention facilities will one day be set up to house all those who believe in the Constitution.  A Homeland Security report by National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism entitled “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States” already reports that potential “terrorists” include those American citizens who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”  One day, a president will cancel or control elections, and the media, and then continue to increase his power to carry out any disturbed agenda he chooses.  Without the Second Amendment, the only question is when.  


Thomas Jefferson said, “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it away.”  This means that the time for action is upon attempt to take away the Second Amendment.  Thomas Jefferson also said, “Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.”  Those who lived through the holocaust know that the time to fight gun control is not when you are disarmed, helpless, and a squad of soldiers come to take you away.  The line must be drawn at gun control itself, because we know from history where it leads.  Let us not be animals who cannot understand our own natures, learn from our past mistakes, or foresee our own futures.  Instead, let us be civilized.  Let us understand human nature, and keep the time-tested means of balancing man’s weaknesses that have preserved democracy in this land for 200 years.  


Americans should be proud to be a society that cannot be conquered, that cannot be invaded, and that cannot be enslaved or controlled, unlike much of the rest of the world.  That is the beauty of our founding fathers’ wisdom that we have inherited.  Our nation is armed, and therefore guaranteed free for our children and grandchildren, by our own hands if necessary. 


True leadership from the President would be to respond to tragic rare shootings by empowering victims to defend themselves, increasing mental health services, increased training and education, and reminding us of the wisdom of our founders, that freedom is not free. 


“America will never be destroyed from the outside.  If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”  Abraham Lincoln. 


“Those who do not know history are destined to repeat it.”  Edmund Burke, the philosophical founder of modern political conservatism.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment