Defending Gun Ownership
In advance of the tidal wave caused by the massacre at Virginia Tech that is going to result in renewed calls for limiting gun ownership, I am motivated to add my voice to those who will say to not allow horrific happenings should restrict reasonable freedoms.
I am going to base my own statements and opinion on this: Why does the Constitution include the right to bear arms in the first place? What motivated the original framers of the Constitution to include such a horrible right in order to GUARANTEE the existence of a civil society?
It is my opinion that the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and even bear arms (the right to bear which is sometimes currently infringed upon by law) is integral to a civil society. Laws can not keep outlaws from bearing arms. It is wrong to deny lawful citizens the rights to bear the arms that would prevent them from protecting themselves from the outlaws.
If a just society could be invented where the only thing the law abiding citizen needed to fear was a punch in the nose from the outlaw citizen, perhaps outlawing the possession of firearms by the ordinary citizen could be tolerated. But what happens when such laws cause the ordinary citizen to become a sheep subject to the government forces who alone are allowed to possess the weapons and who are prevented from defending themselves from tyranny forced upon them by an unreasonable government?
I put forth that the only reason government, whether it be local, regional, or national, does not become unreasonable is through the respect (not fear) of an armed citizenry. That this was the outcome the framers of the Constitution sought to achieve and that what they attempted to realize has been achieved. American citizens are not sheep. We are armed and dangerous. If any dictator seeks to impose his will, he is going to have to attempt to impose that will upon a public that is armed and can defend itself.
Patrick Henry gave voice to these words: "Give me liberty or give me death." Others of his day were motivated to publicize these words so that they made them famous. Today these words ring as loud as the day Patrick Henry uttered them. STILL Americans value their freedoms and are willing to die to defend them. STILL Americans are willing to take up arms if ever a tyrannical government arises that seeks to impose its will upon them without justice behind the will. What guarantees justice behind what politicians proclaim is "the will of the people" is the ability of nearly every American to take up arms when the will of the government no longer serves justice.
Now this is my understanding of the "right to keep and bear arms". It is my understanding that our forefathers felt that if an army of the government, such an army motivated by economics to serve in the armed forces, sought to impose some tyrant's will upon populace, they would have to deal with a populace that was armed against them. That any citizen's son, serving in these forces, might to have to face his armed father who was willing to rise up and stand against him.
With the "right to keep and bear arms" we enjoy a free press that reports upon the likes of the massacre at Virginia Tech. With this right, as presently defined, some maniacs like Cho Seung-Hui are going to kill innocents. However, without respect for human nature, without the ability to rise up and suppress tyranny which is enabled by the right to keep and bear arms, even more deaths might occur without the ability of a "free press" to inform us of it.
The "right to keep and bear arms" does not come without costs. However the costs of relinquishing this right is too high for me to be willing to bear it.
I am going to base my own statements and opinion on this: Why does the Constitution include the right to bear arms in the first place? What motivated the original framers of the Constitution to include such a horrible right in order to GUARANTEE the existence of a civil society?
It is my opinion that the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and even bear arms (the right to bear which is sometimes currently infringed upon by law) is integral to a civil society. Laws can not keep outlaws from bearing arms. It is wrong to deny lawful citizens the rights to bear the arms that would prevent them from protecting themselves from the outlaws.
If a just society could be invented where the only thing the law abiding citizen needed to fear was a punch in the nose from the outlaw citizen, perhaps outlawing the possession of firearms by the ordinary citizen could be tolerated. But what happens when such laws cause the ordinary citizen to become a sheep subject to the government forces who alone are allowed to possess the weapons and who are prevented from defending themselves from tyranny forced upon them by an unreasonable government?
I put forth that the only reason government, whether it be local, regional, or national, does not become unreasonable is through the respect (not fear) of an armed citizenry. That this was the outcome the framers of the Constitution sought to achieve and that what they attempted to realize has been achieved. American citizens are not sheep. We are armed and dangerous. If any dictator seeks to impose his will, he is going to have to attempt to impose that will upon a public that is armed and can defend itself.
Patrick Henry gave voice to these words: "Give me liberty or give me death." Others of his day were motivated to publicize these words so that they made them famous. Today these words ring as loud as the day Patrick Henry uttered them. STILL Americans value their freedoms and are willing to die to defend them. STILL Americans are willing to take up arms if ever a tyrannical government arises that seeks to impose its will upon them without justice behind the will. What guarantees justice behind what politicians proclaim is "the will of the people" is the ability of nearly every American to take up arms when the will of the government no longer serves justice.
Now this is my understanding of the "right to keep and bear arms". It is my understanding that our forefathers felt that if an army of the government, such an army motivated by economics to serve in the armed forces, sought to impose some tyrant's will upon populace, they would have to deal with a populace that was armed against them. That any citizen's son, serving in these forces, might to have to face his armed father who was willing to rise up and stand against him.
With the "right to keep and bear arms" we enjoy a free press that reports upon the likes of the massacre at Virginia Tech. With this right, as presently defined, some maniacs like Cho Seung-Hui are going to kill innocents. However, without respect for human nature, without the ability to rise up and suppress tyranny which is enabled by the right to keep and bear arms, even more deaths might occur without the ability of a "free press" to inform us of it.
The "right to keep and bear arms" does not come without costs. However the costs of relinquishing this right is too high for me to be willing to bear it.
posted by Little David at 4/18/2007 01:14:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home