Hopeful for Heller
In a matter of hours we could have a ruling on Heller – arguably the biggest case currently in front of the Supreme Court. This ruling really has the potential to carve out the path of gun ownership and rights for the next century or two, maybe longer.
“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.”
While many are conjecturing on what they hope the Supreme Court rules, others still claim they know what the Supreme Court SHOULD rule, based on evidence of past documents, indicative of the founders’ intent. Some have indicated that the right to bear arms should be coupled with registration requirements, and others still claim that additional laws, waiting periods, and other such superfluous measures must be taken to make gun ownership ‘safe’ or ‘reasonable’.
While on the surface, these arguments seem logical, it is a bottomless pit. The temporary hope of security is squashed by the long term effects of restricting policies. Gun Laws–over 20,000 strong and counting to date–have proven largely ineffective. Registration has proven the first steps to confiscation. Note that the references to England and Australia are not those of handgun or machine-gun-only bans. These are outright bans on all firearms, excepting a select few, which grossly infringe on the right of the people to use firearms for things such as hunting, recreational shooting, Olympic target shooting training, self defense (a God Given right and responsibility), and even law enforcement (the “bobby’s don’t even carry a modern weapon, unless you consider a stick “modern”).
In all of the cases of gun bans, U.K., Australia, and even D.C., one trend has been undeniable. Gun crimes go up. Way up. Guns become a commodity on the black-or underground-market, and hoodlums have access not just 9-5, but 24/7.
If we knock on reason’s door, we get a response. Bans create commerce. That’s right, drug bans, prohibition, gun bans, and even sex trade bans. Often, these bans have just the opposite effect than was intended. In the U.K., there is a tremendous underground effort, widely successful, to import arms from surrounding countries. In fact, reporters have been astonished when they’ve discovered how simple and inexpensive it was to get a fully functional firearm which could be used in any number of criminal ways.
These firearms, while available to all who really look, are only used by the criminals. Why? They’re illegal, and in case you haven’t taken notice, it’s the people who commit crimes regularly – stick with me here – who COMMIT CRIMES REGULARLY. They want to cheat, steal, and kill. This is in their hearts. They don’t care if some lawmaker has said it’s no good to buy guns. They do what they want, because they are lawless, brutish thugs who want nothing more than to live by their own laws, created in their minds and executed by their own skewed inner judge.
This is what has been revealed as the fallacy of gun control. Pull back the curtain, and you see that gun control doesn’t work, it will never work. As long as man has the means to create guns, guns will be used by the worst of humanity.
So, how then do we protect the rest of civilization from these loose cannons we call criminals? We know laws do nothing but disarm the lawful, while empowering the lawless. For those still not with me here, I’ll spell it out: ARM THE POPULACE. That’s right, put a gun in the hands of as many responsible people as you can, as quickly as you can, and you have the makings of a polite society. There, I said it. When a thug knows that opposition, even deadly force, could be right in front of him (instead of 3-30 minutes away) then he takes a whole new look at his decisions. You see, God has given us all a little gift called the will to survive. We cower at the thought of our own mortality; and even cold, seemingly heartless thugs share at least this much in common with society’s betters.
Now for the frosting: This debate is moot. The second amendment is really a matter of the rights of the people. The arguments are currently for or against the individual right vs. the right of an organized militia (U.S. Army). However, this also is a moot point. Why? Well, isn’t it obvious? The Bill of Rights, the document authored by the Greats of this nation’s founding, was written for you and me, the people. This was not a hall pass, conditionally or temporarily granting us rights to pass to and fro. The Bill of Rights is a message to all governments, now and in the future, telling in no uncertain terms what the rights of the people are. These rights, granted by God, are for all men. The infringement of these rights will warrant a reaction that the 2nd Amendment testifies to: self defense against all tyranny.
Maybe some are confused by the bill’s language, esp. the presence of a reference to the ‘State’. Is this the “State of California”, or the “State of being free”? In just asking the question, I think it clearly proves rhetorical. The State, whether a land mass or a State of being, both refer to one in the same. States were created to preserve freedom, a state which the settlers fought and died for.
This is another crucial piece of the puzzle. John Adams, George Washington, and Mr. Franklin didn’t just risk everything so they could have tea with George the third. They risked life, limb, and country so they could enjoy the freedoms they knew were inherently theirs, and they did it against a tyrannical government. Their sentiment at the time was for one overarching objective: guard against future tyranny as the one just defeated. Power belongs with the people, and the people grant the power.
“This is a free country”. Children run in the streets screaming this to their foes, knowing the truth stands on their side. I love my country, and am honored to live in a land which provides me and my family such a bright future. Some despise our freedoms, some want to destroy them, and some simply don’t understand them. That’s fine. You’re free to come if you want to be one of us, or leave if you don’t.
That’s what’s so great about our country: our freedom to choose our own course. But one thing I will not tolerate is the efforts of the select minority to strip these freedoms away from me and my fellow Americans. This is my land. If you don’t care for such freedoms, or cannot manage these freedoms for yourself, then please choose another land with another government. We are here to stay. Say what you will, but in our hearts, we remain unsympathetic to the whining of parliaments, politicians, and presidents who would infringe on our God Given Freedoms.
And should the time come, we will fight for these rights, every one of us, just as our Forefathers did before us: with our lives.
June 25th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I am an African American, government employee (12 years) second year law student, law abiding citizen, no priors and a past victim of crime. On April 6, 2007, while traveling in MD looking for an address in MD on the DC border, I inadvertently came into the District. While coming less than a mile into the District I was pulled over for no reason by Metropolitan Police officers. I was at a yield sign and a cruiser yielded for me to proceed into a traffic circle for them to pull me over. One theory that I have is that black men in luxury vehicles is suspicious activity (DWB). They illegally search me and my car, discovered my firearm in the glove box. I obtained a Concealed Weapon Permit from the State of Maryland for maintained it for 3 years now. They arrested me and seized my 2006 Infiniti M35x ($60k). The District has been steadfast in their civil forfeiture case and has not let up. It has been a year and a half now and yesterday I am awakened to a call that my car has been vandalized and my property has been stolen. All of this for a law abiding citizen who wanted to protect himself from those who would harm me. Am I crazy or is there a lack of common sense in the District (especially with respect to the Constitution)?
June 26th, 2008 at 2:48 am
Ed –
Thanks for sharing your story. You are not crazy, at least not on the merit of assuming that DC is rife with idiocy in matters pertaining to personal freedom. Fenty disgusts me, and I hope this morning gives him what has been a long time coming. Our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms don’t come from politicians, presidents or protests. They come from God. The constitution is merely a memo to the current government that said rights are not to be tread on. I, for one, am crossing my fingers for tomorrow’s ruling.