Skip to comments.History of gun control is cautionary tale for those seeking regulations after Conn. shooting
Posted on 12/22/2012 3:37:47 PM PST by deek69
At 3 a.m. on July 2, 1993, Steve Sposato sat down in his darkened living room to write, by hand, a letter to the president of the United States. His life had just been shattered.
Hours earlier, in the afternoon, a deranged man armed with semi-automatic weapons had gone on a rampage, slaughtering eight people at an office building in downtown San Francisco. The gunmans motive would remain forever a mystery. Among the slain: Steves wife, 30-year-old Jody Jones Sposato, the mother of his 10-month-old daughter, Meghan.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
From the article: “He told a reporter he would find that letter he had sent 19 years ago to Clinton demanding solutions to gun violence. As he rummaged through his files in his garage, he found himself reliving the nightmare of 1993. He kept looking and looking, and though he didnt find it this time, he knows its got to be in there somewhere.”
Here is my response:
I will state the following as succinctly as I am able.
To wit: Leave me alone or youre going to be smacked hard!
The debate relating to natural rights and the free exercise of them by a free people rages on despite the fact that those rights are impossible to take away because they are, in a word, unalienable.
There are two types of people in the world and only two. In the first instance are those who would live and exercise their natural rights, respecting those of others while pursuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness through their personal effort, while voluntarily aiding those in need of assistance. In the second instance those who would live and exercise their natural rights, while pursuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness through their personal effort, while aiding those in need of assistance voluntarily, yet finding some fault with the former classifications choices in the exercise of natural rights and attempting to institute rules and regulations to control those perceived faults. In short, there are those who live their lives without attempting to exert control of others and those who are unable to live without doing so.
Conflict between the two types is inevitable. The former class, having no interest in interfering with the activities of the latter, will not therefore be the source of the conflict. However the latters efforts to interfere with the formers activities through exercise of some form of control over them, as a result of some personal dislike for those activities, will at first be met with verbal rebuke, followed by the use of force to stop the encroachment of the latter class in the free exercise of natural rights by the former class.
The only debate between the two should be to define those rights which occur naturally and are possessed by both as a result of birth to lessen the likelihood of conflict. In other words, those rights accorded by “Nature and Nature’s God. which both classes are bound to respect by both morality and written law, otherwise known as positive law. (A discussion of natural rights may be found here http://www.answers.com/topic/natural-right although of course elsewhere for a more in depth discussion.) Suffice it to say however that no agreement between the two classes will ever be arrived at as the latter class would continue to seek advantage to enable it to affect control over the former. Conflict is inevitable as stated before. Cognition (the mental faculty or process of acquiring knowledge by the use of reasoning, intuition, or perception) and recognition (the act of identifying somebody or something on the basis of a past sighting or experience, the ability to do this, or the fact of being identified through having been seen or experienced before ) working hand-in-hand.
Why bother with this exercise in futility if conflict is inevitable? The current brouhaha regarding the right of self-defense, the defense of liberty to assure the exercise of natural rights and the methods and tools to be used for their defense demands a cogent (forceful and convincing to the intellect and reason) warning be given to the members of the latter class of people. The understanding of natural rights as opposed to positive (legal) rights is demanded in making that cogent decision.
I generally refrain from offering quotes as I would like to believe I am capable of arriving at my own conclusions through thoughtful consideration using the mental faculties I possess. However in this instance I offer the words of a man who had the ability to express his thoughts using a great deal less verbiage than I.
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave. The Rights of the Colonists (November 20, 1772)
To my way of thinking we are now, and have been for some time, at a point where the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. is no longer being served as intended. The social contract between the government and its citizens has been broken. Violations of the conditions of restraint imposed upon our government at the outset abound and a stench of corruption for the self-aggrandizement of the representatives of the people and for those with interests which can be influenced by the acts those representatives endorse is endemic as to every meaning of that word.
Government representatives choosing when and by what means I may determine necessary or most effective to resist the abrogation of my natural rights by it or my neighbor is tyranny and requires resistance be offered.
Now that you and they (since all electronic communications are monitored) have been informed and warned: Leave me alone or youre going to be smacked hard! and now you know why.
No. I am not going to print the warning in every known language in consideration of those who do not read English. Silly you.
End of debate.
I liked the section on ex-minority leader Bob Michel. It fully illustrates the mindset of a man who was completely at home in the House Minority for so many years and the fact that you simply can’t rely on a RINO when the rubber meets the road.
Don’t worry, they will!
The latter, of course, are known as liberals.
My original screed ended with two words that would have beat you in the syllable count. I should have left them in following the words “End of debate.” “Your move.” But I was trying to avoid verbosity so I cut it short.
Cheers my FRiend.
From the article;
“Bob Michel, a Republican and former House minority leader, remembers the weapon he carried when he hit the beach at Normandy with the 39th Infantry. It was a Browning automatic rifle, a machine gun with a 20-bullet magazine.
I dont know what the magic number would be. But you shouldnt be able to carry more bullets than I did during World War II, Michel said.”
Dumbass in action. Does he know Clyde Barrow (Bonnie and Clyde), broke into armories and stole BARS and magazines. He then welded the magazines together to give himself more than 20 rounds of full auto firepower.
End of debate. Your move.