Quote:
Originally Posted by Weichert
Better to have the tax than allowing nut jobs (almost all couldn't afford the tax anyway) from running around shooting everyone they see on a whim.
|
In 1789, the Framers decided more people would suffer and die if govt had ANY authority to restrict or take away guns, than if the govt were forbidden to restrict or ban any of them.
They put a command into the Constitution saying "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And they even put an explanatory clause before it, as normal English suggests: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...". Even though that clause has no effect on the command, they included it so people would know why controversial things such as weapons were being given such ironclad protection. They did this with other parts of the Constitution too.
Most of the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution, and later added the Bill of Rights, were students of the history of government and the abuses it could inflict. And they knew that government after government had long records of disarming their own people, and then later inflicting serious abuse and oppression on them, sometimes even leading to mass murders of their own subjects. Our own Revolutionary war started in 1775 at Concord and Lexington, Mass., when soldiers of the British government tried to confiscate privately-owned weapons of the colonists.
And the Framers also knew that the people themselves were a far more effective deterrent to crime, than a hired police force who the criminals could identify by sight and dodge as it suited them when committing crimes.
Even if all so-called "gun control" laws were repealed and everybody was allowed to carry, most still wouldn't bother. But a few would. And the criminals would know that when they were contemplating committing a crime, a few people in the crowd would likely be carrying a gun and know how to use it. And would never know which person(s) it was, and so wouldn't know who to defend against. For many of the criminals, this would cause them to not commit the crime in the first place. The result would be a reduction in crime, without a shot being fired.
And even when we have an event where someone in our country grabs a gun and starts shooting, sometimes killing many innocent people, it remains a fact that there would be a lot MORE innocent people injured or dead if government had the power to take away or restrict our guns and other weapons. How many more potential muggers, rapists, and murderers would decide to commit their crimes if they were sure that nobody in the crowd could possibly have a gun of their own?
Today, far more such crimes are committed in so-called "gun free zones", where there are laws forbidding the carrying of guns in the area. Such laws protect the rapist or murderer from danger, of course, while disarming only the law-abiding.
And yet every time we have a shooting, whether it's in San Bernardino, Georgia disco, Ft. Hood military base, Las Vegas, or Douglas High School in Florida, the same panic-stricken talking heads do their best to throw the baby out with the bath water. They demand we give our government the authority to restrict or ban some or all of our guns.
Now, as floods follow a hurricane, they are doing the same thing again. Don't these people ever learn? Have they ever even
bothered examining the reasons why the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and BOR, decided unanimously to forbid all governments in the U.S. from infringing our right to own and carry guns? Despite their having just as much trouble with nutcases and guns then, as we do now?
If these shortsighted people get their way, we will see a lot more Americans oppressed, injured, and killed that we ever have outside of outright war. And if other governments' actions are anything to go by, our government could yet exceed even that total, if they get even a little authority. Because history also demonstrates that if you give them an inch they will eventually take a mile.
"More guns off the streets" is a BAD idea. It would let criminals commit more crimes in relative safety, while disarming only the law-abiding. If everyone were allowed to carry (i.e. if the 2nd amendment were obeyed for a change), most people still wouldn't bother. But criminals would be more cautious and fearful when committing crimes, and would do it less for fear of a few people out of the crowd probably being armed. And that would cause a reduction in crime, far more effectively than the latest useless attempt to "get guns off the streets".
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
