December 17, 2014

The War on Guns; Part One

Unless you have been under a rock the last month or so, you have heard multiple things about the federal government “going after guns”.  This issue is very important and multifaceted.  I want to talk about why this issue is so important, the Second Amendment, the attacks on it and the people who are attacking it, what we might see and how we as Christian gun owners can respond.

This will be a lot of reading, so I am going to break this up into two articles.  The first will explain why this issue is so important.  I’ll also touch on the Founding fathers and the Second Amendment. I am going to link to other articles that I think you should read as well.  I know this is a lot of reading, but it’s important to know why this fight is so important and to understand the argument for our right to keep and bear arms.

 

The War on Guns; Part One

The war on guns is not new but in the last few weeks it has reached a fevered pitch.  The Obama administration is taking the advice of its former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who suggested “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”  Please do not misunderstand.  Let me make this clear now; the shootings that have happened in recent history are horrific acts committed by depraved and often mentally ill people.   Despite this, the Obama administration is using this as an Overton Window to take advantage of the situation and do something they could not have done sooner.

 

Why Is This So Important?

There are two reasons this issue is so important.  The first is because of what we may face and what the past has shown when firearms have been restricted.  The second reason knowing this information is important is to have a rebuttal to those who would argue to take our guns.

 

Having a Ready Response

Security is one of the five basic human needs.  I believe it is the most important one, because without it you cannot protect the other four.  I believe the Founding Fathers also thought it was vitally important.  I do not think it is by mistake that right to “keep and bear arms” is the Second Amendment, following only the right to speak out in protest.

The Apostle Paul told us we should have an answer ready to explain and defend our faith.  I think that is good advice for anything you have convictions about.  You should be able to logically answer and explain your stance to anyone who challenges you.  I say logically because I think people that base their opinion in emotion often don’t sound serious.  That is not to say that one cannot be emotional about their beliefs, I just think one should have them rooted in logic and facts and speak passionately.

I was recently asked what a Christian should do if the government comes after guns.  I answered that we should follow God’s law any time it and man’s law contradict.  If you understand what the Founders intent was when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you’ll have an easier time answering that question on many subjects dealing with our laws, including gun rights.

 

Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Let me first say that I am not comparing President Obama to Hitler or any other despot.  There have been those who believe no civilian should own a firearm since firearms were affordable enough for the average citizen to own one.  I will discuss gun grabbers in further detail later in this article series.  For now, I want to discuss some of the world leaders who have forced strict gun control on their nation and the outcome it led to.

There is some controversy about Hitler and gun control.  From my study of history, I am led to believe that the Weimar Republic had strict gun control in place long before Hitler came to power.  Hitler did take advantage of it and Jews were not allowed to own firearms.  He is also quoted as saying at a dinner talk on April 11, 1942:

““The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.  History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.  Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.   So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”

Joseph Stalin is quoted as saying:

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”

Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6 1938

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun.  The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”

Most recently Robert Mugabe, the dictator of Zimbabwe, has instituted a ban on guns.  Here is a link I found interesting; a liberal who had their mind changed on the possession of firearms.

Something these and so many other evil men understood is that there are two sure ways to control people, take their guns and take their food.  There is a quote that say’s “God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal”.  It is a firearm that levels the playing field and gives a people the ability to stand up and resist tyranny.

Some people will say “This could never happen here”.  I wonder if the Jews in Germany thought the same thing, or the people of Zimbabwe, Rwanda and so many others.

I saw a post recently on facebook that said “I saw a movie once where only the police and military were allowed to own guns.  The name of that movie was “Schindler’s list”.  Never Again!

 

The Founding Fathers

I wrote a series of three articles last year that dealt with the Founding Fathers the Constitution, and the future of America.  I also wrote God’s law vs. Man’s law.  In them, I explain that it took great courage to write the Declaration of Independence. Aside from the Bible, it is one of the most important documents in existence, largely due to the following sentence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The reason that one sentence is so important is because it states that the rights mentioned above in the Bill of Rights and the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and yes, the right to keep and bear arms are granted by God, and what God grants, man cannot take away.

The Founders knew that a large government could not be trusted.  That is why there are so many checks and balances.

 

The Second Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Something important to keep in mind when studying the Bible, the Constitution or any historical document is that context its king.  Something taken out of context can completely change what the document means; this is the case with the Second Amendment.  I have done a lot of reading the last couple of weeks, shoring up what I didn’t fully understand, keeping track of what the anti-gunners were doing and how pro-gunners were responding.  I came across a fantastic document from the Lectric Law Library called The Second Amendment: The Framers’ Intentions.  The author does a fantastic job of explaining the wording of the Second Amendment and how the particular words meant something different at the writing of the Second Amendment than they do today.  I highly suggest you read it, as I will only touch on some key points of the Amendment.  Any of the italicized text in the Second Amendment section comes from The Second Amendment: The Framers’ Intentions.

The first question to answer is; “why would this need to be specified and added as an Amendment?”  As Noah Webster, whose name you might recognize from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is quoted:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.”

You see, the founders knew that tyrants preferred an unarmed populace.  They knew that an over reaching government with a standing army behind it was a threat to the liberty of the citizenry.

Once we understand that these words were very carefully chosen and that the Founders thought they were important enough to make them the Second Amendment, let’s take a look at the words themselves.  I’m going to break this into smaller pieces and dissect each one.

 

A Well Regulated Militia

Context is king.  When many people hear the word militia today, they might think of extremists who stock guns and are just waiting for a chance to use them.  But, when the Second Amendment was written, the word meant something else.

“When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the “militia” included all of the people capable of bearing arms.”

“ALL of the people capable of bearing arms”; this means that according to the founders we are all in the militia.  Alright, so anyone who is capable of bearing arms is in the militia, but what exactly does “well regulated militia” mean?

In modern times the word “regulate” often makes one think of the government regulation and restrictions.   A much better (and much longer) explanation can be found at The Second Amendment: The Framers’ Intentions.  A condensed version is that the founders knew the militia might one day have to fight a standing army raised and supported by the federal government.  They would not have made the militia subject to be regulated by the government.  Who then would be the regulatory body of the militia?  Again, context is king:

“This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb “regulate” the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers’ use of the indefinite article “a” in the phrase “A well regulated Militia.”

That’s right, “We the people” are to self-regulate our own militia groups made up of anyone capable of bearing arms.

 

“Being necessary to the security of a free State”

Some of us may say we live under tyranny now, but it pales in comparison to the tyranny the Founders lived under.  The Founders knew there were three potential enemies; the first, an invading country, the second, a single terrorist or small groups of terrorists, the last, the standing Army sponsored by the federal government.

It is the job of the standing army to fight against invading forces.  It is the job of police agencies to deal with terrorists.  It is the job of the militia to be a check against the standing army.

“Thus, “well regulation” referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.”

“This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton’s observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people’s militias ability to be a match for a standing army: ” . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . .”

Of course we don’t have a structured citizen militia as well trained or as well-equipped as the standing army, but this does provide the basis for citizens to own weapons on the same level as the average soldier.  This would not apply to planes, tanks, mine or grenades, but it would permit semi-auto rifles and semi-auto handguns with high capacity magazines.

 

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The first two parts of the Second Amendment set the stage for why the people have the (God given) right to keep and bear arms.  This last part flatly states the right shall not be infringed.

“Furthermore, returning to the text of the Second Amendment itself, the right to keep and bear arms is expressly retained by “the people,” not the states. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this view, finding that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right held by the “people,” — a “term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution,” specifically the Preamble and the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Thus, the term “well regulated” ought to be considered in the context of the noun it modifies, the people themselves, the militia(s).”

Here is another fantastic piece from Roanoke.com called In Webster’s English.  It explains that the English language has changed since the writing of the Second Amendment and uses the first Webster’s dictionary to explain it.

 

The Second Amendment in Modern Times

There have been some recent developments with the Second Amendment.  First, on August 24, 2004, the Justice Department released a brief on Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right.. They state:

we conclude that the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units.”

In the wake of illegal confiscation of firearms after Hurricane Katrina, there was H.R. 5013 (109th): Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006, which, among other things, states:

“The Second Amendment to the Constitution states that a `well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed’, and Congress has repeatedly recognized this language as protecting an individual right.”

Most recently, on 6-28-2010, the Supreme Court upheld, 5-4, that The Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws.

 

In Summary

The Founding Fathers clearly laid out that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right.  There have been many evil men who have tried to control their people by outlawing the ownership of firearms.  I believe the Founders knew this was a possibility in the future of our nation, which is why they spelled it out.  Even though they spelled it out, some have tried to muddy its meaning.  With the paper from the Justice Department and the decision from the Supreme Court it is clear:

 

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

If you liked this article please think about sharing it on the social media listed below, thanks!

The War on Guns; Part One
The War on Guns; Part Two

Comments

  1. I agree completely. And it appears that millions of Americans are waking up to the fact that they NEED to keep and bear arms. The massive purchase of weapons and ammo since last month should show the government that the citizens of this nation are preparing to protect their individual rights. It’s serious business and many are taking it seriously….

    • It should show them that we want to protect our right, but I imagine they’ll use it as more proof that “gun nuts” are just acting out of fear.

    • james jeffries says:

      I also agree! And the only way we can reel in our government is probably gonna have to be force.It’s also true that people kill people not guns. You can kill a person with so many different objects i couldn’t even name them all.I would rather be killed by shooting than many ways i can think of.And trust me, if the people who want to kill don’t have guns, they’ll find another way.It is just government control thats driving the gun issue.I don’t own an assult weapon,but all the police do.I think any right thinking person who wants one should have one!! James

  2. Renard Gervais says:

    Chris,

    One of your most well-written articles. I fear though only that like many things – you, me, constant visitors to your site and other sites so allied in our beliefs in God, this country, our rights and freedoms………. we are all ‘preaching to the choir’.

    I pray, I sincerely pray, that our nation does not fall under to those who fear their own possession of rights that they abrogate those same to some dim and shadowy power they in turn hope makes the right decisions.

    As a fellow Christian, this is a case of choosing to be a sheepdog or one of the flock. The Shepherd is the same for both constituents; as well as, are the wolves. Personally, as you well know, I prefer being a bit on the more toothsome side.

    Again, fine work.

    R

    • Thank you Renard, I appreciate that. It might be preaching to the choir, but my hope is people might better understand their rights. They can then have a ready answer to support their right.

      I agree, each one of us must choose to be a sheep or a sheepdog, I’m with you, I prefer the toothy side as well.

  3. Great article. I am sharing it.

    What most liberals don’t seem to get is that felons already have had the right to own guns taken from them. They can be sent back to prison if they are caught with weapons.

    Removal of guns from the hands of the general public leaves them totally vulnerable to attack from those who have already demonstrated they have no regard for law, life, or property of others.

  4. Chris,

    Excellent work! We all need to know where we stand…and help educate those around us. Here’s a simple way to get involved and let our voices be heard. This link is the most user friendly way I have found to contact Pres. Obama, VP Biden, and your local Representatives to show your support of the Second Ammendment. Simply enter your name and zip code then you will see a list of those who will receive it.

    http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html

  5. Mark White says:

    This is a great article Chris! I agree with it 100% and with all the comments thus far! I will be linking to this article from my tumblr!

    Keep up the good fight, God bless us all!

  6. I totally agree, as well. However, I would like to see more discussion about what is God’s view on this. Drilling down from Christian worldview, to American Christian worldview, there are some distinctions that should be made. I would venture to say that the overwhelming majority of the world’s non-military population does not own any weapon. If anyone knows of statistics on that, please share them.

    While God clearly blesses some nations more than others, He has a worldwide view of the church. Most would agree that the U.S. has been among the most blessed of all. But many believe this blessing is being, or has already been, taken away by Him. Not all Christians around the world have the right to bear arms. From that vantage point, my question for discussion is:

    Is our ability to bear arms a God-given right, as defined in the Bill of Rights, or is it just part of the blessing that God has bestowed on the U.S., and can take away when He chooses? Maybe I’m just getting hung up on semantics.

    I am not suggesting that we give up that right without a fight, but I think, as in all things, we need to be seeking God’s will. There could be many reasons the U.S. is not mentioned in Biblical prophecy… a self-destruction through revolution could be one of them. Conversely, I believe a revolution could also be part of, or result from, another ‘Great Awakening’ and restoration of God’s blessing on the U.S.. Joel Rosenberg’s recent book “Implosion” explores this, mentioning that the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings occurred not long before the Revolutionary war and the Civil War – both critical times in U.S. history. I find that fascinating how God’s intervention helped bring us through dark times, and wonder where we stand in His view currently, versus the rest of the worldwide church.

    Love to read others thoughts!

    • Chris Ray says:

      Well Todd I think the Founders believed that the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights were God given rights to all peoples, but we can only enforce them in the United States. I tend to agree with them.

      The United States has been blessed, has the Lord or will He remove His blessing? Most likely, if not then as Billy Graham said “He would owe Sodom and Gomorrah an apology”.

      I don’t know if America will see another civil war, but recent events have made me think the possibility is more likely.

  7. Jim Moore says:

    Well Done Chris. I look forward to the next part. Long live the Republic!

  8. James Darnell Mathys says:

    Chris enjoyed the article looking forward to the rest, also have you read the dick act of 1903, i believe also securing our right to bear arms God Bless

  9. Chris, I think you and I might have exchanged this view on ITS Tactical.com, but I wish to state this here either way. While I accept and acknowledge that the right conferred to us by the 2nd Amendment is an individual and inviolate right, it is, in fact, a limited right. All of the rights conferred by our Constitution are limited rights. Any serious examination of constitution law will reveal this to be true. For example, our right of free speech does not, in the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., give a man the right to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. Let me say that I believe in the 2nd Amendment and am the owner of a number of firearms. However, I do not believe the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to buy, sell or possess any weapon we wish. We restrict the right of a person to own a fully automatic weapon and even the NRA does not assert this is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. The crux of the current debate appears to have settled on the issues of “assault weapons/rifles” (admittedly a fuzzy definition), background checks and high capacity magazines, among other things. So I ask all of you, does the 2nd Amendment confer a right to own a high capacity magazine (let’s say any mag that holds more than 10 rounds)? Does it guarantee the right to own an AR-15? If so, what about the 2nd Amendment makes this so? These are the questions that interest me the most.

    • Chris Ray says:

      Hi Mark,

      It must have been another Chris on ITS. As I mentioned in the article I think the citizenry should be allowed to own weaponry on par as the average soldier. The average soldier doesn’t use tanks, planes or even full auto rifles. They don’t use full auto as it is not effective as most soldiers lose accuracy in a sustained burst. Instead they have the option to use single shot or a burst of three. I don’t think the citizenry needs even a burst of three, as single rounds is just fine. I do think we should be able to own high capacity magazines.

      The part of the Second Amendment that speaks to the populace having the right to own weapons on par with the average soldier is “Being necessary to the security of a free State” as the main purpose of the common militia is to be a check against the standing army.

    • I agree with Chris. We should, as local communities and States but mostly as individuals, have the right to equip ourselves with the necessary weapons to keep the military of the current Government in line with the peoples will. This is to guard and protect against tyranny and those that would pervert the power that should be given by the people. I believe this was the intent of our founders and still best describes the individual right that true freedom in a republic provides. There is no way I could defend my personal property with my little Marlin 30/30 lever action against today’s military issue M4 Carbine. Of course I’d probably be up against a 50 cal. mounted on top of an armor plated Humvee, but that’s beside the point. Now, with a sizable local group or militia armed with comparable M4’s, AK’s or AR15’s behind well placed well regulated bunkers surely the military personnel arriving would consider the consequences of firing on their fellow American’s. If they outlaw weapons with high capacity magazines what would be chances to keeping the military in line?

  10. Okay, so the argument is that we need weapons to fight back against the government/military – am I reading this correctly? Here’s the thing, I served 4 years active duty military and was pulled in off of the inactive reserves for Desert Storm, which started 22 years ago today by the way. If the idea is that we need to be armed to resist domestic military force then, trust me, a guy with an AR-15 and 3,000 rounds doesn’t stand a chance. Ditto for 100 guys with AR-15s. If that was the intent of the Framers with the 2nd Amendment, and if it were being interpreted as such by any court, which it never has been in our history, then by the logic you are using we should be able to go out and buy an Abrams tank, some nice mobile artillery and drive down to Cabelas and pick up a couple of F-22 fighters armed with air to air and air to ground missiles because that’s what you are going to need in that kind of a fight. It just doesn’t make sense. Besides, is that really what we do? Fight against our domestic standing army? Is that the way we do business in this country? I don’t see history that way. When we don’t like the party in power we don’t start an armed revolution. That’s what they do in the third world. We tried that once – it was called the Civil War and it was not a pleasant experience for anyone involved – although arms manufacturers made out pretty well. The basis of our system, our Constitution, puts forth the principle of the Rule of Law and, whether you realize it or not, we all benefit tremendously from that principle. If you want to try the alternative, go live in Somalia for a couple of months and see whether you want to try the alternative to the Rule of Law. Have you read what Obama is proposing? I may not like all of it, I would like to be able to buy an AR-15 and 30 round clips going forward. I would like that a lot and I for one hope I will be able to. But is banning 30 round magazines a threat to my civil liberties? No, it’s a threat to the convenience of not having to swap magazines more frequently and the last time I checked the Constitution doesn’t protect convenience. And whether you like Obama or not, and I suspect very, very few people reading this, myself included, voted for the guy anyway, he was selected for the job by the majority of voters casting ballots. Twice. But I don’t feel I can cling to the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and then come back and rail against the natural result of that same document – that is, a president I don’t agree with. It’s all or nothing – we have what we have. If we want the protections afforded us under the Constitution then we have to accept that we will pay taxes and have to put up with the Democrats every now and then. No one promised us we would always get the leaders we agree with all the time. Let’s look at this rationally – no one is going to come and take away our guns. That’s just fear mongering and you know who is profiting from it, and probably driving it? Aramlite, Bushmaster, Colt, Remington, Glock, the list goes on. They are making money hand over fist lying to us by claiming that the government is going to come door to door in jackboots and take away our guns, but that just ain’t going to happen and anyone who believes it is hasn’t been paying attention to reality. Realistically, the chance that an assault weapons ban or a ban on 10+ round clips getting through the House of Representatives is the same as me growing utters that produce chocolate milk. They will strengthen background checks, which is fine with me by the way – I think criminals buying guns is a bad thing – but that will be that. Let’s all calm down and take a breath, please. It’s just driving up prices and I’m sick of paying $1 a round for 5.56/.223 ammo.

    • Chris Ray says:

      I never said we should be ready to take on our modern day army, in fact I specifically said that we don’t have the militia that the framers mentioned. My point is this, if we bend what the framers said on one amendment, we need to be ready for the rest to be bent; this is a slippery slope.

      I don’t know how I can more plainly say that this does the average citizen should not be allowed to own special weapons such as planes tanks and the like.

      I do not understand where you got that we should be putting aside the rule of law, I am in fact stating we should be sticking to the law the Founders intended.

      I’m not sure I understood you correctly, do you mean to say that we should just accept whatever the President does just because he was elected?

      Go over to the second article and read my comments about the Presidents Executive Orders and what he is asking Congress to do. I only have one major complaint with what was said today, I have some reservations as some things have fuzzy meaning so far. http://preparedchristian.net/the-war-on-guns-part-two/

  11. Okay I understand your points and, yes, you have previously stated these things. But what I am seeing here are comments that we need assault weapons and high capacity magazines because the 2nd Amendment’s purpose was to enable the average citizen to stand up to and fight back against the government/military. If that is the basis of these arguments, and from what I am reading here it is, then the logical extension of that argument is that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms in such a way as to compete with the modern military, which would mean tanks and fighter planes and clearly that is not what the 2nd Amendment means. The reason I make the point about the Rule of Law is because that is also the logical extension of the “we need to be able to fight back against the government/military” argument. If the 2nd Amendment truly means that the individual should have right to arm themselves in such as way so as to engage in armed conflict against the civil authority of the United States, then we are talking about the discard of the Rule of Law and imposition of the Rule of Force. In my mind you can’t claim the 2nd Amendment equates to assault weapons and high capacity magazines because the intent of the Amendment is to give citizens the right to arm to fight back against the government/military without going down the path of the Rule of Force. You have to address it because it’s a conflict. Either the 2nd Amendment means the right to arm to fight the government or it does not and if you are arguing for high capacity magazines to fight the military then you are taking the position that it does. If the 2nd Amendment means citizens have the right to buy, sell and possess firearms with limits related to public safety, which is what I believe, then we shouldn’t even be discussing arming in such a way so as to prepare to fight against the government/military. In our society we just don’t do that – we don’t arm ourselves because we intend to take up arms against civil authority. And no, we don’t just accept what the president says because he says it, but we are bound, by both our duty as citizens and our duty as people under the authority of Christ, to follow the rules of the civil authority. We don’t take up arms against our leaders when we disagree, we vote. The signal of our lack of acceptance of what the president says or does is how we vote. But we are bound by the will of the majority and the laws of the civil authority because we live in a country which is governed by the Rule of Law. We may, and do, disagree about what the rational limits on the rights granted under the 2nd Amendment are. But we shouldn’t turn to talk of preparing for violent revolution over that disagreement. We previously lived under the assault weapons ban for 10 years and it didn’t spell the end of liberty in this country and, if the worst happens and it comes back, it won’t be the end of liberty this time either. It might be inconvenient, but it will not be tyranny. At least not in my opinion.

    • Chris Ray says:

      I think you might be reading more into what I said then was meant. You see a conflict where I do not, I believe we should simply be following the Second Amendment, as I explained and linked to two different articles explaining the Amendment. The intent of the Amendment is for the average citizen to be armed as the average soldier would be. Again, no one is saying arm up and be ready to battle the US Military, that would be silly. What I am saying is that we should be able to do as the Amendment states. You say we have to abide by the law, I agree, but so does this President. He nor other elected officials have the power change an Amendment just because they don’t like it. If it stops at an assault weapons ban, fine, I don’t like it but fine. But I think anyone who thinks they (liberals) want it to stop there is a fool.
      Time will tell.

      “But we shouldn’t turn to talk of preparing for violent revolution over that disagreement.” again, no one is saying we should, I’m not sure where you could have even gotten that from anything I have written.

  12. Actually, it’s not what you have written that gives me pause. I have always found your commentary to be well-reasoned. Other comments, however, have made me wonder whether there is some thinking out there that the 2nd Amendment was intended to lead to the maintenance of a shadow militia designed to check the power of the government as embodied in the military. I don’t know that I see any monolithic, cohesive liberal agenda with respect to guns, any more than I see a conservative one. Our democracy is a messy one and most of the time even those who might share a political label end up disagreeing with one another. The current president has, as a check on his power to monkey with the 2nd Amendment, the Congress and the courts. That said, even my favorite president, Lincoln, was considered by many a tyrant, and honestly that was a not altogether unfair label. This whole brouhaha over guns, however, seems to me to be a bit overblown. Both sides of the debate are using Sandy Hook to their own ends, but I seriously doubt that, a year from now, gun law and gun rights will have changed appreciably. In the meantime, arms and ammo manufacturers are cleaning up over what are, in my opinion, essentially baseless fears.

    • Chris Ray says:

      I would agree to your point about the President having Congress and the courts as a check to his power if it were not for Obama care. There was underhanded politics used to push it through when normal means would not work. There were many representatives who openly admitted not reading it, some even joking about “who has the time.”

      Then there are the courts, I do have some hope here, but if one more justice resigns, all hope is lost. Obama has put two people that are to the left of left.

      I hope you’re right, but I fear that if we give this inch, we’ll be lucky if all they take is a mile.

    • Hey Mark, I have a suspicion you may be reacting to something I commented. The intent of my comment was to inspire folks to examine the original intent of our Founding Fathers and others who wrote, examined and ratified the Second Amendment. That’s all. Sorry if I stepped in a direction that offended you. I believe our Founding Fathers were hoping to help further generations guard against the tyranny they had themselves experienced. I appreciate your service to our Country and still believe this is the best country in the World. Unfortunately I also believe there are sinister things happening in high place world-wide. The recent history of Venezuela and Argentina come to mind. The events in these countries seem to be a playbook as to what is going on in our own country at times, especially right now. That’s my personal belief. We need to be very cautious as a democratic republic. Our rights and freedoms are dwindling in the name of our “protection” and there seems to me to be a world order behind the scene orchestrating many of our nations events. I don’t like it, but I see it.
      I apologize if I have offended you or anyone else here. That was not my intent.
      Blessings to you all.
      Long Live the Republic!

  13. Oh gosh Jim, you didn’t offend me at all. I like the lively debate. I am not saying you are wrong at all, I’m just trying to play devil’s advocate a bit, that’s all. I can be a scoundrel that way. No worries.

Speak Your Mind

*