What two words don't go together ? Pragmatic and Liberal. I keep shaking my head when I hear liberals talking about sensible gun control, and how that isn't an infringement on the second amendment. To infringe is an attempt to control. Not a difficult concept to understand really. Why aren't these liberal folks just saying we want to restrict access to guns ? Well, because restrict is too harsh a word. Too explicit in its' intent.
You could argue that the first infringement to the 2nd amendment took place in 1936 when the government restricted the sale of " machine " guns to the general public. They didn't ban the sale, just made it extremely difficult to obtain legally. The argument was the same back then. No civilian needs a machine gun. It was in response to the police being outgunned by the outlaws. Seemed reasonable enough and has remained in force ever since. It remains in force for a simple reason, rights once surrendered are seldom regained ! " Lost rights are never regained by appeals to the conscience of the usurpers, but by relentless struggles " Some doctor said that , it is not mine and take no credit for it. In this case who is the usurper ? The government is the answer. What is a usurper ? Someone who takes power either illegally or by force. The government is usurping the power of the people !
The question becomes how can this be when we are a government of the people. Are the people usurping their own power ? And if so, to whom are we transferring that power ? The government ! Is government independent of the people ? It is when it is being run by an elitist group of people posing as our representatives. But, you say, we elected them. Yes, yes we did. And what did we base our vote upon ? Was it the promises they made, or a commitment on their part to uphold the constitution of the United States of America ? Therein lies the heart of the matter.
The United States was formed by a group of usurpers. We call them the founding fathers, the leaders of a revolution. The current government was overbearing and oppressive. What was the major complaint ? Taxes ! Yup, money to be paid to a government when receiving little in return. Profits were being impacted. Why is was just tyrannical ! And so armed folks fought for and obtained freedom from an oppressive government. We formed our own country, wrote a constitution to define our founding principles and said our government is " for the people. "
In 1791 the second amendment, along with nine others collectively known to us as the Bill of Rights, was ratified. The second amendment was written as a constitutional check on Congressional power given to them under article 1 section 8. That article gave congress the power to organize, arm and discipline the " federal " militia. We would call that an army. The second amendment countered that power with the absolute right of the people to bear arms ! It was a defense against the government assuming sole military strength. It has been described as the " true palladium of liberty " by scholars. In addition it gave the states the final " coup de grace " to oppose the general government. It makes every citizen a soldier and every soldier a citizen.
It is for those reasons that I say pragmatic and liberal just don't go together. All you have to do is read the words of the second amendment to understand its' meaning. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Can't be any clearer in my opinion. Gun control ? Just a small infringement upon the rights of the people ? Those folks that had fought for our liberty recognized the danger inherent in Article 1 section 8 and provided that amendment. The danger had nothing to do with the type of weapons but everything to do with the government having sole control over those weapons ! These folks were the government at the time and knew better than to trust themselves with that power ! Think about that. I don't think we should relinquish that protection. That would not be the pragmatic choice. In the liberal sense we should trust the government right ? The government is making promises, should we just trust our representatives to do the right thing ? Or, is it wiser to hold an insurance policy ? Call it a hedge against tyranny !
I hear folks that wonder if any of this matters ? Some just shrug their shoulders at the debate. My opinion is that it does matter, it matters a lot. Presently I don't even own a gun as I have no immediate need for one. It is my sincere desire I never need to own a gun for self defense. Still, I will not advocate for the infringement on that right. I will not vote to revoke that right from my fellow citizens and soldiers. It may seem far fetched.
Remember Hitler was never elected by the German people. He seized control in 1933. He had run for president in 1932 but lost the election. Then , his party ( the Nazis ) took control and appointed him Furer. He began by disarming the people, consolidating all military strength within the government. He made lots of promises and was even Time magazines " man of the year. " That was in 1938. In their defense they did explain their choice by saying, " Hitler is the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom loving world faces today. " Why ? Because he was taking his enemies means to defend themselves, their guns and their money ! Our government is already taking enough of our money, don't let them take our guns too.
You could argue that the first infringement to the 2nd amendment took place in 1936 when the government restricted the sale of " machine " guns to the general public. They didn't ban the sale, just made it extremely difficult to obtain legally. The argument was the same back then. No civilian needs a machine gun. It was in response to the police being outgunned by the outlaws. Seemed reasonable enough and has remained in force ever since. It remains in force for a simple reason, rights once surrendered are seldom regained ! " Lost rights are never regained by appeals to the conscience of the usurpers, but by relentless struggles " Some doctor said that , it is not mine and take no credit for it. In this case who is the usurper ? The government is the answer. What is a usurper ? Someone who takes power either illegally or by force. The government is usurping the power of the people !
The question becomes how can this be when we are a government of the people. Are the people usurping their own power ? And if so, to whom are we transferring that power ? The government ! Is government independent of the people ? It is when it is being run by an elitist group of people posing as our representatives. But, you say, we elected them. Yes, yes we did. And what did we base our vote upon ? Was it the promises they made, or a commitment on their part to uphold the constitution of the United States of America ? Therein lies the heart of the matter.
The United States was formed by a group of usurpers. We call them the founding fathers, the leaders of a revolution. The current government was overbearing and oppressive. What was the major complaint ? Taxes ! Yup, money to be paid to a government when receiving little in return. Profits were being impacted. Why is was just tyrannical ! And so armed folks fought for and obtained freedom from an oppressive government. We formed our own country, wrote a constitution to define our founding principles and said our government is " for the people. "
In 1791 the second amendment, along with nine others collectively known to us as the Bill of Rights, was ratified. The second amendment was written as a constitutional check on Congressional power given to them under article 1 section 8. That article gave congress the power to organize, arm and discipline the " federal " militia. We would call that an army. The second amendment countered that power with the absolute right of the people to bear arms ! It was a defense against the government assuming sole military strength. It has been described as the " true palladium of liberty " by scholars. In addition it gave the states the final " coup de grace " to oppose the general government. It makes every citizen a soldier and every soldier a citizen.
It is for those reasons that I say pragmatic and liberal just don't go together. All you have to do is read the words of the second amendment to understand its' meaning. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Can't be any clearer in my opinion. Gun control ? Just a small infringement upon the rights of the people ? Those folks that had fought for our liberty recognized the danger inherent in Article 1 section 8 and provided that amendment. The danger had nothing to do with the type of weapons but everything to do with the government having sole control over those weapons ! These folks were the government at the time and knew better than to trust themselves with that power ! Think about that. I don't think we should relinquish that protection. That would not be the pragmatic choice. In the liberal sense we should trust the government right ? The government is making promises, should we just trust our representatives to do the right thing ? Or, is it wiser to hold an insurance policy ? Call it a hedge against tyranny !
I hear folks that wonder if any of this matters ? Some just shrug their shoulders at the debate. My opinion is that it does matter, it matters a lot. Presently I don't even own a gun as I have no immediate need for one. It is my sincere desire I never need to own a gun for self defense. Still, I will not advocate for the infringement on that right. I will not vote to revoke that right from my fellow citizens and soldiers. It may seem far fetched.
Remember Hitler was never elected by the German people. He seized control in 1933. He had run for president in 1932 but lost the election. Then , his party ( the Nazis ) took control and appointed him Furer. He began by disarming the people, consolidating all military strength within the government. He made lots of promises and was even Time magazines " man of the year. " That was in 1938. In their defense they did explain their choice by saying, " Hitler is the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom loving world faces today. " Why ? Because he was taking his enemies means to defend themselves, their guns and their money ! Our government is already taking enough of our money, don't let them take our guns too.
No comments:
Post a Comment