Obama can do anything – so after Obama stops assaults no one will need an assault weapon to defend themselves during an assault. Until then, assault weapons are necessary.
It’s easy to figure out what should be done about assault rifles. Once the world is free of assaults, no one will need an assault weapon. Until then, guess what? People will continue to need assault weapons and government is supposed to make sure they can get them, keep them and use them. Use them when needed, of course. That’s the most common sense argument that can be made about guns. The Second Amendment is the most common sense gun law ever written. Don’t believe that? Find the Second amendment and read it.
Notice that the Second Amendment was not intended to ban guns. It is intended to ban government from making laws about private citizens keeping and using among other things, — arms. How do you attach a meaning to that word? Do you think it includes, for example: mortars, bazookas, machine guns, sub-machine guns, carbines, shotguns, sniper rifles, flame-throwers and other useful weapons of mass destruction? Is the idea of “Arms” as used in the Original Constitution the same as it was in 1776? Is the idea expandable to the 21st century century or is it limited to the definition available in the 18th? Does the idea of “Arms” mean the weapons of mass destruction that can be carried by people? Does it mean the internal combustion engine can be used to carry “Arms”? Can a boat be used to carry “Arms”? How about an aircraft? How about an ICBM? Is an ICBM part of the armament of America? Can the world be made safe without Arms? Can the police and the military protect Americans from the violence and the carnage for example like 9/11? Remember, America had the largest amount of nuclear weapons in the world and yet 9/11 happened by a small group of terrorists from far away who did not have a single bullet, gun, assault weapon or hand-granade. Does that mean the police and the military should disarm because assault weapons did not protect Americans on 9/11? How about the carnage from Hurricanes? Do assault weapons protect Americans from carnage from hurricane? Should Diane Feinstein ban hurricanes as part of her gun, bullet and magazine ban? Or how about the carnage from automobiles? From high speed highways? From spoiled fruit? From the flu?
All those things and more are responsible for violent deaths around the world. In fact the difference in wealth can be blamed for the deaths of millions of people who are murdered each year by starvation. The United Nations believes that and is pushing that in thousands of programs being carried out by millions of people as part of the Rio Earth Summit’s. See for one example, the United Nations Inclusive Wealth Report for 2012.
Unfortunately the Second Amendment is not to make the world safe. Nothing can do that. There are not enough weapons to make the earth safe. If there were, the American Military would use them and poof, evil’s gone, you are safe. Until then, government is supposed to protect your ability to obtain, keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting, muskets or pistols. It’s about everything useful to kill people. That’s how a country is protected and kept safe from invasion. That’s how a country can resist tyrants. Ask the Swiss. Most of them keep a machine gun in the bedroom. Should America be less safe than the Swiss?
Suppose Al-Qaeda sneaks a hundred enemies into America. Can the government stop them from killing Americans? That’s why the Second Amendment is so important. Instead of letting Al-Qaeda run around chopping off heads, a few citizens could shoot them. Problem solved. Can’t happen here? What about 9/11?
Know why the Germans were able to conquer Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Holland, Denmark, Finland and so on so easy? No guns in the hands of the citizens. Note that the Germans didn’t invade Switzerland. The people had assault weapons in the bedrooms.
Suppose someone tries to conquer America while the military is far away? It’s good to know some citizens can shoot the invaders and stop the invasion.
Think if the Shah or Saddam Hussain had to deal with people who had arms. Think if the Israeli Olympic athletes at Munich in 1972 had a few pistols in their luggage. Or if the citizens in Iran were armed. A few guns can produced different results.
If you are still opposed to guns in America, think of them as free insurance policies against a hostile takeover. Think of them as a free back-up to the military and the police at no cost to the citizens. A sort of armed citizens army, a silent, pervasive militia. Private citizens with weapons who can help keep America safer.
Come to think of it, America is probably safe from Al-Qaeda because Al-Qaeda is not stupid. Sure they want to be martyred but they don’t want to get die until they kill Americans. So these private guns are working.
One of the defining differences between America and all other cultures, countries, Constitutions and creeds is the basis for the country. The basis of America is the diametric opposite of the United Nations, that massive Mistake on the Hudson. The U.N. is based on the Communion of the Community. That would be Communitarianism. America is far simpler. America is based on you. Just you. An individual. An individual who is so respected by the nation that the entire basis for the laws was written to support you, as an individual. That idea is so new to human experience it is only imperfectly understood. The U.N. bases Rights on the whim of the State. America grounds all laws in the supremacy of the individual. That’s not only exceptional; it’s worth protecting which is why the Right to Arms occupies such a prominent place in the Pantheon of Liberty.
Views: 5
