The response to our content contest so far has been, to coin a phrase, fast and furious. It seems that the prospect of adding an FNS-9 to your safe has been almost as inspiring as patriotic swimwear. And given the quality of what we’ve received, it only seems right to share some of the best so far. We’ll present them here largely unedited other than some minor formatting and tweaks for readability. So to kick things off, here’s Tony G.’s entry which was apparently inspired by RF’s post yesterday.
Mr. Byron Williams,
I trust that you have read the District of Columbia v. Heller in full. If you haven’t it’s here. You’ll clearly see the Supreme Court didn’t arbitrarily rule the way it did without doing their homework . . .
If you look at the writings of that era from the Framers, especially in the Federalist Papers and in the writings of Tenche Cox as well as look at what the word ‘regulated’ meant and how it was used in the 1700’s and 1800’s, you’ll get a clearer idea of what the Framers wanted.
First off, the Second Amendment was put in place as an insurance policy against tyranny. The Framers had just finished a war against the British. High taxes, firearms confiscation were some of the factors that lead to the Revolutionary War.
The more one reads into the writings of that era, and opinions of court judges since then the more one realizes the Second Amendment was designed to give us a level playing field against those that would oppress the citizenry by allowing the individual equal access to the same weapons that a tyrannical government or invading army may employ.
Let’s call gun control what it really is that pro-big government types don’t want it to be called: incremental civilian disarmament. No one is talking about gun control for the government or any of its agencies. No one is talking about restricting firearms to local law enforcement.
There’s another term that is apropos as the Second Amendment affirms our right to self defense and that term is: Self Defense Rights. At the core the Second Amendment is about our right to self defense. Restrictions are incremental infringements on our Self Defense Rights.
When all else goes to pot in the case of a tyrannical government, owning a firearm becomes a political tool as well, ergo it is also a political right.
By the way Mr. William, what part of “Shall not be infringed” do you or other politicians not understand? I think it’s very curious that these politicians swear to uphold the Constitution and yet many of them can’t wait to gradually erode our rights and under the smoke screen of “public safety.”
By the way Hitler said the same thing to the Austrians when he took all of their guns. He stated that too many were dying from gun-related deaths and that there were too many hunting accidents and so he confiscated all of the Austrians’ guns. We now know what his true motive was.
Also, researching the word ‘regulated’ and seeing it used in context, the meaning doesn’t necessarily mean restrictions as it does today. From what I’ve read “regulation,” especially in the context of Second Amendment, means more to the point “guided, and active.” The Framers wanted to encouraged the populace to engage in “martial exercises.”
Now about this idea of tyranny. A common argument is that we have no need to worry about “tyranny,” that perhaps people talking about “tyranny” are paranoid and so on and that it will never happen here. I agree that tyranny hasn’t happened here as we have had the Second Amendment as our insurance policy and the expression of that policy in the form of a high level of civilian ownership of firearms has disincentivized the possibility of tyranny.
What I assure you will incentivize tyranny, though, is a disarmed populace or a populace whose means of self-defense is limited or unequal to the choices available to those that would oppress said populace. In the 20th Century, per Congressional record, we saw nearly 135,000,000 people die under tyrannical regimes. Obviously one of the bloodiest centuries ever. The primary policy instrument has always been civilian disarmament, gun control by any other name, followed by extermination. While registration and confiscation do not always lead to tyrannical regimes, tyrannical regimes do use registration and confiscation before implementing genocide or mass murder.
While politicians are interested in the prevention of a few lives being lost each year due to gun violence, I, as I am sure others are as well, am much more interested in preventing the potential deaths of millions. The 20th Century was a confirmation of what happens to an underarmed populace under oppressive tyrants. Individuals kill only in small numbers. To quote Glenn Beck’s keynote Speech at the NRA convention a few weeks ago, “Governments kill millions.”
Some politicians will state there is an epidemic here in the United States and that we have a high per capita murder rate and that more guns lead to more deaths. What they won’t tell you is if you factor out Detroit, Chicago, New Orleans, Washington D.C., all cities with strict civilian gun control policies, the U.S. is actually one of the safest countries on earth.
I part with this quote:
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. – Thomas Jefferson