Saturday, January 26, 2013

Understanding the Second Amendment

Commentary on Marco News
Somehow, the most hysterical voices against gun safety equate our duly elected leaders with tyranny. Because President Barack Obama thinks guns should be "well-regulated," he's become their enemy. For their most devoted defenders, guns have become a reflexive right. We have the right to own guns so we can have guns in case someone wants to regulate your guns.

The point of having guns isn't to have guns. We have guns to protect our selves and to hunt, but the reason they are constitutionally protected is to ensure "the security of a free state."

There's a word for those who would take up arms against our government, and it's not "patriots." If you have a gun to protect yourself against someone regulating your gun, then what you love isn't America, or freedom, but your gun.

A friend of mine fought in Iraq with the 101st Airborne. He says, "If people want to play with guns that badly, let them join the Army," which, when you think about it, is one kind of a well-regulated militia.


  1. MikeB,

    Government does not exist to regulate and tell citizens what to do. Government exists to safeguard the rights and liberties of citizens.

    Liberty and rights are so important that our United States Supreme court released a man who confessed to kidnapping and raping a woman. That man was Ernesto Miranda. And yet you want to mettle with everyone's firearms because of what they could do.

    If there is evidence that an individual committed a crime or is conspiring to commit a crime, then and only then is it appropriate for government to step in. Doing anything else is equivalent to forcing people to wear muzzles before entering theaters because someone could yell "Fire!" just to cause injuries. The fact that someone could cause injuries with any type of firearm is not sufficient cause to limit ownership, use, nor possession.

    1. I don't know what you're talking about. I'm for restrictions on firearms ownership, which the Supreme Court said is proper. I'm for holding gun owners responsible when they fuck up. What part of this has to do with Mr. Miranda and your rights not being safeguarded?

  2. Fidel Castro made his victorious post-revolution entry into Havana, Cuba on January 8, 1959. The next day, Castro's regime began collecting guns and disarming the population.

    From Castro's address of January 9, 1959:

    I appeal to the public to disarm the ambitious. Why are clandestine arms being stored at this very minute? Why are arms being hidden at distinct points of the capital? Why are arms being smuggled at this moment? I tell you that there are members of certain revolutionary organizations who are smuggling and storing arms. All the arms that were found by the rebel army are stored and locked in barracks, where they belong. What are these arms for? Against whom are they going to be used?

    Against the revolutionary government that has the support of all the people? Do we have a dictatorship here? Are we going to take up arms against a free government that respects the rights of the people? We have a free country here. We have no censorship, and the press is free. The people can gather freely if they want to. There is no tormenting of political prisoners, no murders, no terror. When all the rights of the citizens have been restored--and an election for the purpose is going to be held as soon as possible--why do we need arms? Are we going to unseat the President with the arms? Are we going to set up revolutionary organizations? Are we going to have gangsters?

    Are we going to practice daily shooting on the streets of the capital? Why do we need arms? Yet I tell you here and now that two days ago elements of certain organizations broke into the San Antonio barracks, which are under the jurisdiction of Commander Camilo Cienfuegos and also under my jurisdiction as commander in chief of the armed forces, and carried away 500 small arms, (16?) machine guns, and 80,000 cartridges. I wanted to tell you about this and make use of the influence exerted by public opinion so that those who are planning any criminal adventure will not be able to recruit any troops to follow them. The theft of the weapons cannot be justified, because this is not a dictatorship. We are never going to use force, because we belong to the people. Moreover, the day that the people do not want us we shall leave. As soon as possible I will take the rifles off the streets. There are no more enemies, there is no longer anything to fight against, and if some day any foreigner or any movement comes up against the revolution, all the people will fight. The weapons belong in the barracks. No one has the right to have private armies here.

    Governments that disarm their people always say it's for the greater good.

    Within days of Castro's promises of civility, a wave of executions was underway. All at the urging of the people, of course.

    orlin sellers

    1. What in the world does 1959 Cuba have to do with the 2013 United States?

    2. He who forgets the past is condemned to repeat it.

  3. “Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State.”

    ― Heinrich Himmler

    But then again, what does any other nation on Earth at any other point in history have to do with the Good ol' USA?

    We have protections against being arrested without charges or held without trial or executed without process... well, in *practice* anyway.