Monday, January 28, 2013

Assault Weapons

Big gun go BOOM!

I keep reading and hearing about this silly gun debate and how some conservatives are finally understanding the intent of that amendment that says something about rights to bear arms and stuff. Because that wasn't for hunting. You know, Thomas Jefferson or that Adams guy or any of those guys that wore powdered wigs didn't stand up and go all "we must protect the right of citizens to go a-hunting!".

Because if that is what they meant, they probably would have written it as, like, "Congress shall make no law infringing upon the right to go a-hunting". Something like that. So I don't think that is what they meant by the whole right to bear arms thing. And like I said, some people are finally getting that, and coming to the conclusion that people have a right to be armed for the more important purpose of being able to tear down a tyrannical government, as the founders did. Because they knew that eventually our government, checks and balances and all, would become tyrannical. 

I don't think it's quite there yet, but it is really trying. Guys like Obama are doing their best to sideline the constitution, but pesky judges and "the people" keep getting in their way. Someday, that will not be the case, and it will be time to really examine the 2nd amendment and what it means.

And what it means is assault weapons. Tanks. 155mm howitzers. Not conceal carry...that would be hard...but legalized. You're thinking, "Keln, you're nuts!". No, not really. Riddle me this: when the colonies revolted against the most powerful military in the world at the time, did they do so with pea shooters and knives? Or did the Continental Army and the many militias have relatively similar weaponry as the British did? Like cannons...

Exactly...banning any kind of weapon, short of weapons of mass destruction (which is a whole other category), is akin to infringement upon the rights of the citizen to bear arms. You can't draw a line on ammo size, ammo amount, or rate of fire. If the government has it, then the people ought to have access to it. How else can they keep government in check?

Consider this: if we were faced with a scenario such as the American Revolution in the modern day, with our modern military backing a tyrannical US government, they would be able to wipe out massive amounts of citizens whether those citizens were armed with currently legal weapons or not.

Am I advocating that people own modern battle tanks? Not necessarily. Am I advocating an overthrow of the government? Heavens no. Any and all political, diplomatic, and civil means ought to be tried before resorting to such drastic measures, which, I might add, happened prior to the American Revolution. But government overthrow isn't my point.

My point is about what the Constitution says and what it means and the whole reason for the 2nd Amendment. It is to arm the citizenry. To make us the vanguard of our own freedoms. Government attracts people who like power, and they are willing to sacrifice whatever freedoms you have to increase and maintain that power. A well armed citizenry helps to keep that in check, with the threat of civil military action if things get too out of hand.

So why are fully automatic weapons banned then? These are actually what could be called "assault" weapons...not AR15s and such which aren't fully automatic. Real assault weapons have been banned for near a hundred years. But the government has them...why not the citizens? Because of the occasional crime perpetrated with them? Well those are few, even though criminals do have them. No, the real reason is that they have a good military use, or militia use if you prefer, and not much use to criminals really. And anything that smacks of giving the citizenry a military level of armament is a threat to the power hungry in government.

So, by the Constitution, limiting ammo or rate of fire or the "look" of the weapon is clearly infringing rights.It is an infringement upon our rights if the government limits the citizens to inferior weapons while employing far better weapons itself. 

Otherwise, we will be limited to going a-hunting, and I just don't see how that gives We the People any power at all.

4 comments:

  1. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is so important. I guess the founding fathers never thought we'd get this complacent, or maybe they would have spelled it out more carefully. In this environment, I'm not even sure that would have worked.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You feeling any better yet Keln?

    ReplyDelete