A Disarming Dilemma

The Second Amendment to our Constitution secures the People’s right to keep and bear arms.  Whenever one expresses the belief that this is indeed a right the response is frequently one something along the lines of, “There you go again….clinging to your guns and your religion.”  This is usually followed by questions like, “Why don’t you want to stop gun violence,” as if guns were running around on their own killing innocent people.

There is a great photo circulating in an email that shows pictures of Hitler, Castro, Idi Amin, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, Qaddafi, Stalin, and Kim Jong-il and includes a title:  The experts agree: Gun control works!  Yeah, it works just fine for those who want to absolutely control “the people.”

The playbook of the Progressives to disarm American citizens includes:

If you can’t pass laws within our Constitutional system, REGULATE!

Project Gunrunner Backfires on the Left

“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.” –Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

In the article link above Mark Alexander states:

Barack Hussein Obama and his Socialist cadre, in their enthusiasm to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” have redoubled efforts to do what all tyrannical governments must do to establish absolute state supremacy and usurp Rule of Lawdisarm the people.

If you have not read details on “Project Gunrunner” this article will give you an overview.  Some highlights for the purposes of this post:

The ATF implemented Project Gunrunner in 2006 as a strategy to track weapon distribution networks between the U.S. and Mexican drug cartels — a worthy goal on the surface. Problem is, once the guns crossed into Mexico, ATF lost most of its tracking capability, which is to say that efforts to follow the distribution trail and stem the tide ended at the border.

While Project Gunrunner failed in charting weapons distribution channels south of the border, Democrats saw its utility as a means to implement new gun regulations north of the border by asserting that all the violence in the region is the result of gun sales in the U.S.  (Emphasis mine)

NOTE:  This issue, now being referred to as “Fast and Furious”  asks the question:

Why was the U.S. government, through “undercover” agents at the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms allowing known Mexican drug cartel members to buy weapons in the United States? Who in the administration gave the orders to do this and why? –and points out–

Don’t forget that this whole thing “blew” wide open because U.S. drug agents in Mexico were killed with the very weapons their government made available.

Make Congress irrelevant.

Gun Owners of America posted an article in April 2011 about a Senate bill 679 that would:

… give Barack Obama the ability to fill major gun-related Department of Justice slots with anti-gun partisans, without the pesky inconvenience of having to comply with the Constitution’s requirements for Senate confirmation.

To paraphrase an oft used statement:  It seems there is more than one way to disarm the citizenry! If y’all don’t have a crisis or emergency handy during which you can forcibly confiscate firearms, well, just regulate, regulate, regulate until is darn near impossible to keep and bear arms!


Regulate at all levels and regulate often!

I also recently read an article that said:

An Illinois law that says you must show valid photo ID to purchase a gun is causing problems for the Amish because their religion prohibits them from having their photos taken.

The article also contains a great IRONY ALERT:

The same Democrats who believe the Amish should be forced to violate their religion in order to purchase guns feel just as strongly that photo IDs shouldn’t be required in order to vote. They voted down a law proposed by Republicans in 2008 that would have made voter photo IDs necessary.  (And that’s true everywhere, not just in Illinois!)

Then there is Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s push for “gun control” measures.  This Chicago Tribune article states:

He proposed four new state criminal laws aimed at reducing gun violence and vowed to battle bills that would bar cities and villages from enacting gun-control measures and allow citizens to carry concealed weapons.

“We are ready for this fight,” Daley said, after noting his long history of anti-gun violence efforts during nearly 22 years in office.

“I am proud of my record on the issue of guns and gun violence,” he declared. “I was one of the first mayors in the country to aggressively take on the gun lobby. I’ve done that at the local, state and national levels.”

Please attend to the fact that the issue is oft times re-framed to be not just “gun control” but being “against gun violence.”  Who isn’t against gun violence?  Oh, yeah, that would be the gun lobby!  You know, those guns that are running around killing innocent people?  It seems they put on suits and are now registered lobbyists! Well, at least they’re registered!  🙂

Notice how one can come away from an issue presented in these terms thinking the “gun lobby” is FOR gun violence.  People begin to believe that anyone who legitimately wants to protect their Second Amendment rights either do not care about gun violence or want to foment that violence themselves.

That saying: “Guns don’t kill people.  PEOPLE kill people” comes to mind.

Also another IRONY ALERT on this issue:

… Mayor Daley is requesting a retinue of at least three — around the clock — Chicago Police bodyguards from his mayoral security detail to accompany him into the private sector!

I wonder if these bodyguards will be armed?

So, why should you care about the Second Amendment?

I would like to point out that there are quite a few court cases that have determined that Police have no duty to protect individuals.  These determinations have a great deal to do with lawsuits brought against police agencies that have failed to protect citizens.

In many cases there was indeed outrageous incompetence and negligence, however, if you do the math you must come to the realization that we don’t have enough law enforcement personnel ANYWHERE to guarantee protection to EVERY citizen all the time…..so what’s a citizen to do?  Protect themselves, right?  How do they do that?  They do it in a number of ways, but one of the most effective ways is through the use of a firearm.

Consider the case of the college student who saved the lives of 10 students attending a party in Georgia by using a gun to shoot the intruders.

So, if you come to the conclusion that guns have legitimate purposes for personal protection as well as for hunting then you have to ask yourself why would Progressives work so hard to limit or even eliminate your ability to keep and bear arms?

Food for thought:

An armed man is a citizen.  An unarmed man is a subject.

This entry was posted in Government Regulations and the Constitution, Gun control and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s