Skip to comments.
The Gun Control Debate
| 27 January, 2013
| Charles Heller
Posted on 01/31/2013 6:20:05 AM PST by marktwain
Today there is a raging debate in our republic about so-called "gun control," which is really just a euphemism for theft of rights. Hopefully, "gun control" will be a phrase that is eventually, "euphemized," and put out of our collective misery.
I want to provide a context for several of the arguments which are used in the modern lexicon of those who would attempt to separate you from your rights, but first I want to define a term. Many of us who can read the Constitution and understand it's historical context, have known for a long time that the right to keep an bear arms, was not created by the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment says Quote: "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does NOT say, "the right to keep and bear arms is hereby created." The right pre-existed the Amendment, plain and simple.
The 2008 decision from the Supreme Court in District of Columbia vs. Heller, reaffirmed that this right is a primary individual right. (For clarity, I am not the Heller in question. That is Dick Heller, a life-long resident of The District of Columbia, and a special police officer who works at one of the government buildings there.)
As a fundamental civil right, the right to keep and bear arms has some natural enemies - people who want to aggrandize the power of the state over the power of the individual. While there are example of this on both the left and the right, the FACT remains that anyone who is so prejudiced against your fundamental right, is by definition, a bigot. A bigot who is against your rights, is by definition, an anti-rights bigot. They are not anti-gun, because they do not object to the guns on the side
(Excerpt) Read more at jpfo.org ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Political Humor/Cartoons
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; guncontrol; propaganda; secondamendment
I have known Charles for nearly 20 years. He is a stand up guy.
posted on 01/31/2013 6:20:11 AM PST
Very seldom do we have the luxury of making decisions that are 100% correct, we are lucky to hit 50-50. The objective is to implement solutions that have the greatest impact on the problem with the smallest negative impacts on things that are NOT part of the problem. And that is the rub with the solutions being proposed/implemented. There is a near 0% chance that any potential gain will be achieved while 100% chance that there will be negative impact on factors (people) that are NOT part of the problem, yet we will dance in the streets and go back to sleep and unfortunately there will be another mass casualty in our future. What do we do then?
My interpretation of the left's proposal is they want to ban assault weapons to reduce the number of people killed. My position is I want no one killed. I am not willing to accept that 10 instead of 26 deaths is ok. The only death acceptable to me in an attack is the death of the one(s) that perpetrated the attack. And the only way to get to that point is to have equally deadly force at the point of attack.
We must reevaluate out decision making process. The terrorist attacks on 911 transformed our thinking and polarized our nation and has instilled a national fear that I have never seen before. Each year we spend weeks preparing for our annual cry in/bell ringing/name reading at the ground zero of these terrible events and the destruction of our national foundation begins because we decide that society is wrong rather than the perpetrator of the event. We no longer use any real facts to evaluate what happened, how it happened and how we prevent similar events, instead, we occupy, light candles and cry. I have read most anything I could find on this so called assault weapons ban and not once has any of the conversations communicated what an assault weapon is, what the definition of ban is and how a ban would stop/reduce these attacks. Further, everyone of these conversations have left open further weapons bans so I am left to only one conclusion, the objective is to remove all guns from every house in the US. So bottom line is, this entire conversation is nothing but a lie designed to take advantage of an overly emotional society by distorting the facts. I would be very happy to endure an intrusion of my 2nd amendment rights IF we had a real approach to eliminating these tragic events but until that happens, the only solution is to have some sort of armed security in the schools and do away with this gun free zone crap.
posted on 01/31/2013 6:35:21 AM PST
in most school districts there are employees who already have the required state permits to carry concealed. they cannot carry at work because of the stupid ‘gun free’ zones, which are read by the bad guys as “free public shooting gallery”. since the permitted people can be anyone, or everyone, the shooter doesnt’ know who will stop his spree, and that he can be thwarted anytime. and certainly BEFORE he can accomplish his objective.
he then has two choices - go elsewhere (where there IS a shooting galler-er-gun free zone - like Aurora) or drop his idea anyway.
this concept of allowing permitted employees to carry on site doesn’t cost anything, fits no one’s political agenda. this is why it won’t happen, and why mass shootings in gun free zones will continue.
posted on 01/31/2013 7:40:01 AM PST
(keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson