“Two days after the shooting deaths of 26 people at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, Sen. Dianne Feinstein pledged Sunday that she would introduce new gun-control legislation at the beginning of next year’s congressional session,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
Well that didn’t take long. Feinstein and her fellow liberals are having a field day, on Facebook, Twitter, the blogosphere and mainstream media. But are they barking up the wrong tree?
Feinstein is trying to ban assault weapons. It is rather ironic that she is seeking to make the same weapons illegal that the U.S. Justice Department sold to drug dealers in Mexico – in the failed Operation Fast and Furiios. These weapons later were used to kill a U.S. border agent.
Speaking of Mexico, did you know that average folks in that country may not own any guns or ammo? Yet hundreds of thousands of Mexicans have perished in the past half dozen years at the hands of drug dealers and crooked cops and soldiers. That’s right – the bad guys in Mexico have plenty of guns. The innocent citizens do not have any means to protect themselves.
Dan Chmielewski, a local liberal blogger here in Orange County, went as far as to write, in a recent post, that “The premise behind the second amendment is for a well-ordered militia to be able to possess firearms in the event there is a need by citizens to take control of the government by violent means.”
That is not the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is ensuring that Americans won’t be bullied not only by their own “rulers” but by any other foreign ones as well – enemies foreign and domestic. And remember that our system of democracy is already under attack by those who would get rid of our electoral system. Absent that sytem all you have is mob rule, as in Venezuela, where democracy installed a dictator, Hugo Chavez. His followers are heavily armed. Everyone else? Not so much.
The same thing happened in Cuba too. The 2nd Amendment ensures that Americans will have the means to keep this country free, period.
So should we add more gun laws? When the current ones are not really being enforced? The bad guys always attack places where they know there are no arms. You won’t ever see them trying to shoot up a gun show!
The real problem in this country isn’t guns at all. It is the lack of help for those who are coping with family members who are mentally ill. That is the root cause that President Obama, Senator Feinstein and other liberals simply won’t acknowledge. Instead they are trying to make hay out of a tragedy – trying to disarm innocent law-abiding Americans, which really won’t help anyone at all. Except for the bad guys. They’ll be quite pleased at this turn of events.
That Obama and Feinstein can pursue this agenda with a straight face while their drones kill innocent people in the Middle East is quite ironic. Feinstein in fact “has long faced questions about potential conflicts of interest in Congress, according to Breitbart News sources. Specifically, for at least 15 years, Feinstein has appeared to support government contracts that push federal funds toward companies co-owned or governed by her powerful, billionaire husband, Richard C. Blum,” according to Breitbart.com.
You have surely seen the video news footage and the still pictures from the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre. There were cops all over the place, dressed up like stormtroopers in most cases. How long did it take them to put all of that gear on and then get to the school? Too long, as it turned out, and an unarmed populace was unable to cope with one lone shooter. Imagine if any of the teachers or administrators at that school had been armed? That may sound far-fetched, but some teachers in Israel are reportedly armed. Have you ever heard of any crazy people shooting up schools in Israel?
What about Sweden Switzerland, where every citizen is a member of the national militia and is given a carbine by their government? Imagine if the U.S. were run that way? What if we had no standing army but every law-abiding citizen had a carbine and was part of a national militia? Without a standing army we would stop invading and attacking other countries and no other country would ever dare invade us.
“What about Sweden, where every citizen is a member of the national militia and is given a carbine by their government?”
Did the author mean to cite Switzerland in this case?
LOL! Indeed. However it turns out that Sweden has a home guard too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard_(Sweden). And it includes Home Guard cadets:
The Home Guard Cadets (hemvärnsungdomar) is a youth section consisting of young girls and boys aged 15–20, typically recruited at age 15-16. The Cadets receive military training that includes base building, L-ABCDE first aid, CPR, communications, physical training, orienteering, defense studies, basic firearms training (with .22 long rifle up to age 16 and AK4 B with red dot sight from age 17) and from age 17 and up also patrolling and leadership training (group and platoon). At 18, a Cadet is allowed to undergo battle training.
“What if we had no standing army but every law-abiding citizen had a carbine and was part of a national militia? ”
And that is what the debate on the Bill of Rights was about. It was NEVER about making sure that every citizen could have any armament they wanted.
The Constitution is quite clear. We are allowed to have a standing navy, but not a standing army. Instead of a standing army we were to have well regulated State militias that could be called by the President and Congress in times of war or insurrection to serve the Federal government.
From the Madison Resolution, June 8, 1789.
Resolved, that the following amendments ought to be proposed by Congress to the legislatures of the states, to become, if ratified by three fourths thereof, part of the constitution of the United States… The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
That was the first draft from Madison. It looks familiar because it was taken from the Virginia Bill of Rights which he authored.
Here was New York’s take.
New York — That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of War Rebellion or Insurrection. That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the Civil Power. That in time of Peace no Soldier ought to be quartered in any House without the consent of the Owner, and in time of War only by the civil Magistrate in such manner as the Laws may direct…that the Militia of any State shall not be compelled to serve without the limits of the State for a longer term than six weeks, without the Consent of the Legislature thereof.
If you are seeing a common theme here, it’s all about ensuring that there are limits on a standing army, and a method for ensuring the peace and security of the country.
HOUSE RESOLUTION AND ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT; August 24, 1789.
ARTICLE THE FIFTH. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Again, militias….
On September 4, the Senate agreed to amend Article 5 to read as follows: A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
And more militias…
On September 9, the Senate replaced “the best” with “necessary to the.” On the same day, the Senate disagreed to a motion to insert “for the common defence” after “bear arms.” This article and the following ones were then renumbered as articles 4 through 8.
ARTICLE THE SIXTH. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT; September 8, 1789
That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the members present in both houses. That no soldier shall be enlisted for any longer term than four years, except in time of war, and then for no longer term than the continuance of the war. That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except when in actual service in time or war, invasion or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only tosuch fines, penalties, and punishments as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own State.
There was no debate over arming the people, the debate was over how to ensure that there was no standing army, yet there was a system in place to ensure the security of the country. The solution was State militias and the limits on the Federal government to disarming the members thereof.
Now, I am willing to give the firearm supporters their due. If the Second is about the right of every citizen to own any weapon they want, then I would expect that all supporters of that view of the second to be fighting ANY limitations on arms ownership. That means that I should be able to get a Shoulder-Fired rocket launcher if I had the desire and the capital to purchase one. Because under the NRA definition of the Second, there are NO limitations to ANY arms that a citizen may have by the government.
You can’t read the Second Amendment as 1/2 no limits and 1/2 limits. It either allows unlimited access to all arms by all citizens, or it allows limitations as subjected by the elected representatives will. OR the Second Amendment is about limiting standing armies and ensuring the safety of America by State (well regulated) militias. That the US has been operating in violation of the Constitution since the War of 1812 (we have had a standing army since then) and with the 1903 Act that eliminated State militias it completed the slaughter of the Second Amendment as it was configured by the founders.
So, our options are to drop the Second Amendment since it doesn’t do what it was designed to do, or to agree that the Federal government can not limit access to any arm that any citizen wants to own and operate. OR, to revert to the Second Amendment as it was written, remove the 1903 Act and restart the State militias and dismantle the standing army. Since option two is never going to happen, our best course is option one, vote by State to amend the Constitution and eliminate the Second Amendment. And if we are doing that, it would be a great time for the NRA and the firearm supporters to add a new Amendment that says what they think the Second Amendment says (which it does not).
I am willing to let the NRA and gun lobbyists have their opportunity to get what they claim is in the Constitution into it. What I won’t let them do any longer is pretend that it’s already in there in the Second Amendment.
On a closing note, I love all the images of Israeli teachers carrying weapons and how we should do that. I’ll even agree to that. As long as there is mandatory two year service in the US armed forces. You serve, you stay in the reserves and you can carry your weapon wherever and whenever you want.
I’m open to that. Freedom isn’t free!