novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts tagged 2nd Amendment

One of the most lucid and clear statements on the 2nd amendment I’ve seen in recent history is in an article on the site Center for a Just Society. I quote a small part here:

Simply put: “The right [not privilege, right, just like freedom of religion, speech, the press, and assembly are rights] of the people [the American populous; we really didn't need the Supreme Court to tell us that this summer to know it was so, but they reaffirmed it anyway in the Heller decision] to keep [own and keep in our homes] and bear [carry about as we determine necessary for our security] arms [guns, knives, swords, battle axes, etc.) shall not be infringed [government won't even come near to touching it; won't touch the "fringes" of it].”

We should not put up with the legislature taking away our rights. There is no “common sense” restrictions on guns for law-abiding citizens. Tell your congressman and senators that you want them to vigorously fight to restore what the constitution says in regard to guns: that the right of the people to keep and carry with them the arms (weapons) for self-defense are beyond the control of the government.

It is a right, not a privilege, and the government does not have the authority to infringe it.

… looking for an excuse.

There are plenty of people that are afraid of guns, knives, stepping into the breech and putting their own life on the line. Those that are not cowards do so when the situation demands immediate action. It is not just the heroic thing to do, it is the right thing to do. Defending the innocent is a virtue; not defending the innocent when you have the ability to do so is cowardice.

So what is a coward to do? If there is real guilt (guilt of being a coward) when someone has the ability to act and does not, then the coward’s way out is to make sure they do not have the ability to act. That is easy … just do not carry a gun and when one is required, they will not be able to act. But wait, what about guilt for not preparing oneself to act when it is reasonable to prepare? How does a coward get around that guilt? Well, suppose NOBODY can prepare because it is illegal? That would mean the coward is off the hook! Brilliant! Just work to make it so nobody has the tools to defend the innocent. How do you do that without looking like a coward? Claim it is to protect people! Even more brilliant! Now, the coward gets to say they are the ones protecting people (even though every instance where gun restrictions are imposed, violence against the innocent increases). The perfect ploy! They get to be the protectors of society, when in fact they are the ones that are just too afraid to act!

Next time you see someone that advocates restricting gun laws, ask if they are just ignorant of the facts that guns save lives, or if they are just being smart cowards (yes, I know there are other possibilities, like the people in power attempting to make sure the populous is unable to rise against an evil dictator).

“It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to possess a qualifying firearm on or after the applicable date, unless that person has been issued a firearm license …”

It has started already. H.R. 45 has nothing to do with safety. England (an island no less) has completely suppressed the rights of the people to defend themselves, and rather than a decrease in crime as predicted, violent crime (including murder) has dramatically increased.

The right to bear arms is lost bit-by-bit. Do NOT sit idle, act now … Write your representative to ask him to vigorously oppose this scheme to chip away at our second amendment rights.

One of the arguments I’ve heard recently is that someone is placed in more danger by a law abiding citizen having a concealed handgun. This line of reasoning is out of a position of ignorance of modern firearms and the built-in safeties they employ.

One of the arguments goes along the lines of “if the gun slips out of the holster, then it could go off when it falls.” While it is conceivable that a pistol could “go off” on being dropped, it is extremely unlikely. Modern firearms have a “drop safety” that is specifically designed to prevent the gun from being able to be fired unless the center of the trigger is pulled back before the outside edges. If the gun is just dropped, the impact, even if the gun falls so the trigger is “up”, would have both parts attempting to drive back at the same time. The drop safety will not allow that to happen (and a 5 lbs. pull would also tend to prevent the trigger from having enough kinetic energy to overcome the trigger pull).

There are others that think a handgun could “just go off” sitting in the holster. While that might happen if the person was manipulating the gun (or he was being burned alive) guns do not “just go off”.

So then, “random” firing is not going to happen.

What about an enraged fight going to the point of drawing a pistol?

Not very likely either. Of the times when I’ve heard of someone shooting someone else after a fight at a bar, the vast majority of the times it was after the shooter left, and brought back the gun. I don’t know, but it seems like those that are hot headed enough will not have the right to carry a concealed firearm (they will have broken the law before and lost the right.)

So why do I say it isn’t just a negative, but a positive? First, if I’m out without a firearm, and someone walks into the business with which I am dealing and brandishes a weapon, I would certainly appreciate a law abiding citizen with a firearm stopping the criminal. If there were only seconds until the person would start shooting, then it would certainly be in my interest to have people *right* *there* to defend me (or at least drive off the criminal in their own defense).

So please, if you are a law abiding, able bodied, mentally competent citizen, obtain training, a concealed carry permit, and start carrying. It will make us all safer if you do.

One of the things I can’t stomach about almost any politician is double speak: saying one thing that clearly means something other than what you mean. The Demoncrats are at it in spades with this paragraph from their platform document (page 50).

Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we ill preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that he right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

The second amendment clearly states that the people have an individual right to arms, and if anything, those arms should be what would clearly be useful in self-defense and defense of a family. The rights of the people are not contingent upon location. The rights of those in Cheyenne clearly do apply to those in Chicago, as long as both are within the United States.

The Democrats what to change the constitution, but not through constitutional means. In a sense, they are traitors to the constitution. Pragmatism is no excuse. Even if “what works in Cheyenne may not work in Chicago” that is beside the point. The rights are not given based on “what works” or what does not work. If change is needed, the change is to be done through amendment … not through laws or even the court (I suppose I should make that “The Court”). Changes to the constitution through any other means is not upholding the constitution, it is subversion of the constitution.

Those “common sense laws” are neither common, nor sensible. There is no “gun show loophole” in that ordinary citizens are allowed to sell their personal property anywhere they want. While nobody wants to sell guns to criminals, any sane man will not want to give up liberty for security. Liberals tend to see that as stop the government from knowing what I do, restrict police in their ability to search, wiretap, read internet communications. For these they see “do not give up liberty for security” as a good thing. But there is another side to that same thought. The right to own just about any personal firearm is a liberty which we enjoy. Those that want to restrict it for security (even if that security was in fact real) are doing exactly what they don’t want in another context. They fear a “police state” that is intrusive into their personal lives, yet they hold no fear for a police state (or criminals) in an even broader sense. How foolish to fear the government has too much power in one case, and then want to give the government even more power in the other. How forgetful of history.

The Democratic platform is one of fear. Fear based on a premise that the goverment is the only one you can trust to take care of problems. If someone has a problem, the government should fix it. Insecure people that have no sense of self-reliance and self-determination. People that think 2 minute response times for police calls is more than enough (until they are the ones that have someone taking a baseball bat to their head in 20 seconds–but they won’t think it too long for very long … they will be dead.)

If people are going to have such fears and insecurity that they feel they must live with everyone they know unarmed they should move to a true police state. (By the way, it won’t be everyone around them disarmed, because even the most staunch gun control advocate still sees a need for the police to have guns, and some of them do go bad.) They want to force their views on others. They are so insecure they become intolerant. I fully respect someone for believing they are either incapable, or even just don’t want to, carry a gun. What I don’t respect is that person attempting to force others into the same position.