Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Thoughts on Guns and the American Argument
The current national debate on guns is one such topic where sober minded thought is in short order on the political stage.
Let's reason together, about guns and personal responsibility.
I don't own a gun.
I am not a hunter.
I wear leather shoes and I love Prime Ribs of Beef on Christmas.
I love my children.
Readership is well aware of the many articles I have written on cases involving missing children, abused children, and murdered children.
I am a father and am soon to be a grandfather.
I have a vested interest in child safety in our country.
Let's take a blunt look at the arguments today, and, perhaps, not draw a conclusion. It is uncomfortable to walk away from an issue without a conclusion, but it may be wise. Let's just think things through for awhile.
Assault weapons aren't for hunters.
I owned a .22 caliber rifle, years ago, when my oldest children were young. I left it on a table and instructed my young sons to not touch it. I said this in a firm voice, buttressed by politeness and closeness to them. They were curious about it, but after several weeks, they still had not touched it, and I allowed them to learn target shooting and attend a hunter safety class. They did not develop interest in guns or hunting and eventually I gave it away. They fell in love with hockey, instead.
The 2nd Amendment was not for hunters. It was a reaction to the suffering that Americans underwent through the oppressive government that they had resisted, via armed resistance.
The early Americans believed that it was their duty to provide for their families and when England's Parliament issued tax after tax, it reached a point where it infringed upon their ability to provide for their family. They appealed to the king, of whom they had covenanted together, as loyal subjects. British Parliament did not represent the colonies and had no right to tax them.
But tax them, they did, and enforce the tax was something they did at the end of a gun.
The king, they said, had abdicated his right to rule over them because he did not protect them. The armed resistance movement began, and the signer of the Declaration of Independence had their necks on the line, literally, if the armed resistance of the government failed.
They would have been hung by the neck until dead, and the history books would have read differently. George Washington would have been a name of disgrace to school children, rather than a general who was able to wiggle away from the Brits long enough to put up a good fight.
But there was something that convinced the last of the hold outs in the colonies to fight, even when they felt that they should have continued diplomatic attempts at reconciliation with the mother country: this was the Quartering Act.
The Quartering Act was hated and it is not difficult to understand why.
Let us say that you, reader, have a husband and children, and live in the era where that brought about this dreadful law.
You worked from sun up to sun down, 6 days a week, and had to force yourself to not work on the seventh day, even though you had daily anxiety over the amount of food your family had for the week. Your husband worked 6 days, and your children worked hard, too, tending to the farm animals, while you worked to make clothing for the coming winter. Week by week, you had just enough, and on the seventh day, your body, weary with work, rested and gave thanks.
When night came, darkness was amazingly dark, and the stars were amazingly bright. There were no street lamps, and you and your husband kept a loaded musket against any possible intruders.
There was no 911 to call.
There were no cell phones to pick up. Your family's defense came down to your husband's strength, and his strength often fell upon you, his wife, who sometimes had just a bit less chicken because you wanted to make sure your husband had enough protein to keep him strong.
Things were that tight.
As you struggled, you sold dozens of eggs (never carrying them all in one basket, as your own mother taught you), and found that if you were to sell 4 dozen per week, you could not only have enough money to buy sugar and wheat, but a little left over to buy more garment to knit gloves for your children. The gloves from last winter were worn right out and your concern about shoes for this winter has turned to anxiety.
You've just been told that of the 48 eggs you sell, 4 will now have to be given to the British, as a tax. It is the exact number of the extras you had in hopes of a tiny profit, and even, or so you dreamed, of a Christmas present for your children.
You swallowed this in bitterness, as your due service, but your loyalty to the king has been tested yet again. You don't like the talk of the other women who complain bitterly and are even urging their own husbands on to armed resistance. You've always believed that hard work would be rewarded, but the more you and your family makes, the more is taken from you. Talk is beginning to spread out there, and even in church, men are talking about armed resistance of the British imposition of taxes.
War talk scares you like nothing else. You've read some unpleasant stories about it.
One day, a knock came on the door and a British soldier, with his fancy and expensive wool clothing, stood at your door with a piece of paper; a notice that said, "Attention! Quartering Act Regulations! By order of British Parliament..."
You knew that British Parliament had no jurisdiction over you any more than Scottish Parliament had jurisdiction over the Brits, yet, here is a soldier with a very large gun standing at your door.
You are told that he is to be given "quarter" in your home.
You have to put him up.
You have to feed him.
You do not like the way he is eyeing your pretty young daughter.
Your husband is going to explode when he gets in and finds this young trouble maker, with more weapons than your husband, in his home, drinking his milk, eating his food, and smirking at his daughter.
The Quartering Act was the most blistering of the regulations that the Brits put upon the struggling colonies and it was the scariest of all.
Never again would the new "Americans" allow a government to take away their arms.
This is why Americans had the right to bear arms; not for hunting, but for protection specifically against a government.
I understand this well.
It is not about hunting.
Yet, the government dynamics have dramatically changed since the 2nd amendment.
The government has weapons that are incredibly more powerful than any assault weapon, including the Atomic bomb, and the drone. Night vision, high powered military rifles are going to mean that anything a citizen has will be rendered useless.
This leads me to wonder...
Does the 2nd Amendment, in spirit, still apply today?
I don't know.
In Europe, there are some countries where you can only give your child government approved names. The Europeans are proud of this, as they say they do not want weirdo parents giving their children weirdo names to be ridiculed in school their entire lives.
The problem that they do not see is that although most agree with this law, eventually, as governments become more and more powerful, they will find laws they do not agree with, and the government can impose its will upon them...
Just like the Quartering Act.
Young America severely limited government for the reason that they understood that freedom was vital for life, and that eventually, everyone comes to the point where their government will betray them, so better to limit their power from the beginning.
Joseph Stalin literally starved to death millions of citizens in "the name of the people" in the 1930's and the policy of expendable life continued, through the 40's and 50's, with the young leaders, learning from the elders.
Who do you think JFK stood down in the Cuban Missile Crisis? Kruschev was known to help kill millions, via starvation, just as he was known to put a bullet in the head of his own rival's wife, when called upon.
The Soviets were willing to have millions die and the Cuban Missile Crisis was real. It was strength by the previously perceived weak President, that backed them down, just as it was the strength of Ronald Reagan that brought the Cold War to an end.
So the original intent was to make sure that government could not impose its will, unjustly, upon the population.
Is this still applicable?
When you were pregnant, did you talk to your child before he or she was born?
Did you watch your nutrition?
Did you avoid things that would not be be healthy for your baby?
Did you get your rest?
Did you rub your belly and read to your baby?
I bet you did.
As to the government concerned about the children, Planned Parenthood ends the lives of children, pre born, at a rate that no gun could ever: every 90 seconds a pre born child's life comes to an end by Planned Parenthood; whether or not you support abortion. Planned Parenthood, if it were to be traded on the New York Stock Exchange, would be an incredible growth stock story, rivaling Walmart, Apple, or anything else we've seen in our life time. The wealth they have generated through ending life is stunning. Whether you believe it is morally objectionable to end the life before birth or not, you have no choice but to pay for it. If you withhold your tax dollars as a moral objection, you'll have a man come to the door, with a gun in his hand, and a piece of paper.
Outlawing scalpels isn't an answer.
What must it be like to be wealthy as a doctor who performs abortions? I don't know. I imagine that in the first few months, you could tell yourself about rapes, or about mothers' health issues, or poverty, but what happens as months turn into years, and then, one day, you take a tally of how many lives you ended.
I think I'd walk around in a perpetual state of anxiety.
The arbitrary date of when a person is a person was once based upon viability, but given the advances in medicine, this became earlier and earlier. Timing is arbitrary. If you kill a young child at a certain time, and have a license, it is legal, but if you go past an artificial deadline, or if you don't have a license, you're a murderer.
(The banning of certain guns by the number of bullets per minute they fire, is also arbitrary.)
Date setting aside, an abortion is not a private matter between doctor and patient: Planned Parenthood's propaganda and choice of wording has made them rich.
Freedom to choose would mean just that: I won't force you to outlaw abortion but you don't force me to pay for it against my will. Or, you don't allow abortion, and I won't force you to pay for mine.
Something like that might be a start for some to hold discussion.
But don't pretend that the government cares about children. Government kills more human beings, in every era or measurement of human history, than anyone in human history. England ended slavery with killing no one. Lincoln's war cost 600,000 lives in just 5 years.
The wealthy among us, including Barak Obama, have their own children guarded with guns.
Bringing children into the political argument was disgustingly reminiscent of Dr. Joseph Goebbels in Nazi Germany.
Who will save the children?
In America, a few people are paid to go to Washington and cry out loud, "Who will save our children?" and "Why don't you care about children?"
So, the politicians quickly buckled and soon enough, children's bicycle helmet makers were making billions.
When anyone says, "Who will save the children?" I always know that someone is about to cash in.
Logic and Reference Point.
Outlaw certain guns and you will have a school shooting that is accomplished with a gun that shoots X number of bullets per minute instead of Y. Sadly, a suicide killer will find means.
Courts, Lawyers and Lawsuits
We've all heard the story of the man who breaks into another man's house, gets shot, and successfully sues the homeowner. At the gun store, people are told, "if you shoot an intruder at your doorstep, drag the body inside so you won't get in trouble."
It has become that goofy for us.
Lawyers on both sides, the assailant who broke in, and the home owner, make money, and the one deciding how much money is a lawyer too. As if we did not have enough laws, we keep electing lawyers to offices to give us more laws.
When the gay marriage debate raged, divorce lawyers were salivating, not caring about freedom nor anything else; just profit.
In the gun debate, listen carefully for deception.
Know that when your government imposes an opinion on everyone that you agree with, there may come a time when it imposes an opinion you don't agree with. Then, you will long for freedom. Thugs are still walking around NYC with illegal 40 ounce sodas. They are there, but don't you dare profile them.
Don't talk about their protruding bellies, as if all of us, well, all of those with protruding bellies are illegal soda drinkers.
It isn't fair to link us, to link them all together.
So it is with the gun argument. We need a national dialog about socialism versus freedom, and our children need to be both protected and educated.
I cannot imagine carrying a sign and walking in circles chanting, "Down with school shootings" as if there were others who would be protesting in favor of school shootings.
It was horrible and the damage is irreparable. Would it had been any different had the crazy child killer gone to Home Depot and bought ammonia and made a home made bomb? Would the parents' hearts be any less broken? What had he done it with knives or swords?
I wish someone there had a firearm and took out that animal early on, and saved lives.
Two itty-bitty countries on the other side of the world have a 1,000 year dispute about a piece of land and a government sent 25,000 of our sons to die. Most of these did not go to Viet Nam on their own free will, but went because if they did not go, the government would have sent someone to the door, armed with a piece of paper and a gun, insisting that they go.
Roosevelt, now hailed as a hero, knew exactly what an oil embargo would do to Japanese thinking. On the other side of things, WWII did bring us out of the great depression by getting manufacturing in high gear. How many Americans died?
Given today's sophistication of military weapons, there is no way for an armed resistance, at a grass roots level, to take place. There may be another argument brewing.
Texas is prospering. They've got a state surplus and lots of Texans are walking tall and talking about succession from these united states. It's fascinating to listen to.
I wonder if they learned anything from history.
History teaches us that these United States is a club that you can join, voluntarily, but if you decide to end your membership, you'll soon find a gun pointed at you...and your family.
Where I live, drug abuse has meant an increase of crime, including bold home invasions in rural areas.
Is it okay for me to buy a handgun, should I choose to do so, strictly for the purpose of defending my family from an armed intruder? The armed intruder will get his hands on a gun, laws be damned. I wouldn't be buying it to hunt. I do my hunting at the grocery store. I would buy a gun to defend my family against someone who cares nothing for gun laws, gun registration, or gun safety. He just wants money for drugs.
Is this part of the 2nd Amendment? Is this the spirit of it?
We need a national discussion about this, but not in front of the children. Barak Obama quoted scripture about putting away childish things, even as he brought in children. I'd like to know who's idea that was and what books did the adviser read recently?
The 2nd Amendment should be discussed soberly, without the political drama and theater of propaganda.
The writers could not have foreseen the advancements in military technology, and while some point to the Jews of Germany, what of the Jews of Poland?
When they finally were able to arm themselves, at least they were able to take a few Nazis (on the left) and Soviets (on the right) with them. Better to have died fighting, than to die passively. The lesson of "never again" rings in my ears often, as public sentiment turned against the Jews in Europe in the 1920's and 1930's but most British and American ears dismissed as propaganda the stories of the passages to the East where Jews went, but did not return.
The government should always be limited in power.
This is the teaching of history. For people of religion, it is the teaching of Scripture. Limit government. Freedom is scary because it carries responsibilities.
Human history has shown that government is responsible for most killing of humans, by far, than any nut with a weapon.
History is consistent with the fact that governments kill, and those who win, write the history books and choose which names are heroes and which names are to be demonized.
Is it any wonder that kids today do not know history?