Arrogant People
Almost all politicians - Senators and Representatives - have armed bodyguards. Even the man who threatens the 2nd Amendment with executive order, President Obama, is guarded by well armed guards known as "Secret Service" agents. They are armed not only with hand guns, but snipers, and high powered automatic rifles when necessary. Inside their SUVs are some of the deadliest weapons designed to respond if the president convoy is attacked. Oh, and how about Senator Dianne Feinstein? She explained, a few years ago, that after she and her hubby were targeted, she went through gun training, and obtained a conceal-carry permit. She boasted - (paraphrase) if someone wanna take me out [shoot me], I'll take them with me [in other words, I'll kill them before I am killed]. Watch her talking about "being armed" to protect herself.
She said she understood the desires of the people to defend themselves, but now what? How on earth could she move from understanding the "urge to arm" [for personal protection] to believing - in 2012 - that no one should own a gun?
These are the very people, the very party (Democrat party) that are going after the rights of individuals to bear arms, all in the name of SAFETY as if criminals in American would voluntarily give up their arms. What they (politicians) will do is taking guns away from innocent people, leaving behind well organized gangs who are armed to the teeth to continue terrorizing cities and neighborhoods.
Why is there 2nd Amendment?
US emerged from a tyrannical brutal empire to become the only world's superpower. It is obvious from the beginning that leaders understood the rights of individuals, and the possibility of living under a tyrannical ruler, and the need, should it arise, to defend themselves from their government. The inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the US constitution [Bill of Rights], which reads:
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. (caselaw.lp.findlaw.com)
demonstrated the mindset of the founding fathers of this country. The notion that no one needs an assault rifle to hunt is indeed misleading because hunting was never mentioned, or the founding fathers didn't intend to protect "hunting", but the US homeland. They obviously didn't trust government. Having emerged from a "Revolution" that killed more Americans, they knew that a Democratic government could turn tyrannical in a heartbeat as in the case in France, Germany, Russia, Japan, and the list goes on. The guns are there for citizens to protect themselves when necessary. Today, the government is trying to take assault rifles/guns away from not only bad people, but also responsible gun-owners.
Renowned Economist Walter William Explains it Well
To assume that peace can only be achieved when there's no gun, is absurd at best. Humans are very unpredictable; they live together peacefully then they start fighting against each other. In UK where guns were taken away from civilians, gun-related crimes statistically increase, even if it is considerably lower than USA, it didn't reduce the gun related crimes. But all that aside, we need to understand the differences between UK and USA. The unitary system such as that of UK and its commonwealth countries, civilians don't have a say in the decision making body. The parliament makes the laws and the people follow that law no matter how bad it is. Unlike UK, US gun ownership is protected by the constitution, and to overhaul this law requires some civilian inputs to the debate. Keeping civilians away from the process would mean the government is indeed going rogue on it citizens, as such, the government is engaging in the very act that gave legitimacy to birth of the 2nd Amendment also known as TYRANNY!
Majority of cities across America are peaceful with responsible gun-owners. The highest gun-related crimes come from metropolitan cities where gangs live, and with mentality sick individuals such as the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary. To make it worse, these cities have the strongest gun-laws than any other places in United States. Cities like New York, Chicago, LA, New Jersey etc. should take a look at their own gun laws and find out why they aren't working.
Mentally Ill Americans Killed Innocent people
A couple of days ago, the governor of NY came out and explain the reasons why assault rifles or guns must be banned. Of all the reasons, "MENTAL ILLNESS" is number five. Really? This is the cause of so many school and public shootings. Take for instance the shooter at Virginia Tech; he was mentally ill so much so that his mom notified school about it. He wrote disturbing, gory essays for his English classes, and eventually shot more than thirty people. The movie theater shooter in Colorado: he had a mental breakdown while attending university, withdrew from friends and family, and decided to go and kill as many people as possible, and also sets up traps to kill cops who would enter his apartment. The shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary school was a mentally ill young man, suffered from a form of autism and other genetic problems and was home-schooled for a while. He decided to kill innocent kids before shooting himself. And here's the governor of the most Liberal state in the nation blaming NRA, blaming GUNS while downplaying the significant factor in all these shootings (which he used to justify his call for ban on rifles) the so-called "mental illness".
Politicization of these Massacres
The one-size fits all federal approach toward gun ownership is a violation of the US Constitution, and the civil rights of all responsible gun owner across America who lives in states where gun violence is almost nonexistent. How is taking guns away from my little town of Suffolk, Virginia, going to help cities like Chicago reduced its gun-related crime rate? How is taking guns away from a peaceful city in Louisiana going to help Lost Angeles reduced its gun crimes? Gun related violence should be left to the State because millions of gun owners around the country are now seeing why its necessary to own a firearm and why its necessary to defend themselves against the "Tyranny" of government. Gun sales across America is off the hook and if the government thinks people would just give up their arms, they are insane! Tyranny only exists when a regime starts shooting civilians down the road, it also exists when a regime or a government uses the cover of the Constitution to implement radical policies against the very people that voted them in. Tyranny also exists when government decides what law to violate in the name of the the people; this is often described as "soft-tyranny".
My Solutions
The solution is to tighten gun laws in the states, ensure people don't abuse their guns, a thorough background check of all applicants is also necessary. Make sure guns don't fall into the wrong hands. For instance, the woman whose son shot up the elementary school in New England had purchased a number of weapons when she knew her son was mentally unstable. To make it worse, she taught him how to use those guns at a shooting range. As a result of that, her son shot her in the head and went to the school and killed innocent children and teachers before shooting himself.
A new approach should regulate all weapons in homes of known unstable children. Which means that kids who are being diagnosed with mental illnesses must not remain or live near guns and that their guardians who possessed arms before this law would be required to store their guns in safe places. Regular inspection is also sufficient to protect the public from these out of control kids. This is a smaller group people. In addition to that, schools must change their policies on accepting kids with history of mental illnesses. Failing to do so would mean the school violated the law and liable to be punished. All parents with mental illness should report to authority, once their children are being diagnosed, so that they maybe monitored. Parents who failed to do so would pay price once their children committed horrendous crimes and took their own lives. The man who shot more than thirty people in Virginia Tech had so many opportunities to get much needed mental attention, yet each time the school ignored him - even his teacher who read some of his gruesome descriptive essays, also failed to act. They all missed the opportunity to stop the massacre. How about finding ways to make sure people like this are isolated and treated before they kill innocent people? These are possibilities and can be implemented should the government prioritize the mental health of kids.
The Government that Sold Guns to Criminals Should Shut up!
Read the Facts about the US Government Fast and Furious Scandal.
This is the administration (Obama administration) that sold thousands of guns to drug cartels in Mexico in an attempt to track them but lost them completely. This scandal resulted in the death of thousands of Mexicans and a US border patrol officer. When Congress found out, the Department of Justice (DOJ) first LIED TO CONGRESS - a felony under the constitution - then admitted later that they knew about it but acted to stop it. President Obama also claimed he didn't know anything about the whole operation. However, when the Attorney General was further investigated by the House oversight committee, Obama stepped in and declared "executive privilege" over everything in the DOJ's possession (thousands of documents the Attorney General refused to hand in or made public) and essentially killed the investigation. When the House of Congress voted to hold the AG in contempt, the DOJ refused to prosecute him. The case died leaving behind so many unanswered questions and unhappy Americans and Mexicans. The scandal was essentially killed by the Democrats, the same people that are now going after peaceful gun-owners.
These thugs in suits and ties engaged in a criminal act which no one ever punished for and are now shamelessly going after guns regardless of the owners' clean records. Isn't this stupid? You don't have to be a tattooed exconvict to be a criminal; if you intentionally sold guns illegally to drug gangs and lied about it to Congress - which is a felony, YOU ARE A CRIMINAL!
This is the Attorney General being confronted about lying to Congress about his knowledge of the Fast and Furious scandal.
This is the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa going off on the Attorney General for lying to Congress... getting extremely personal.
Point of Argument: For those who believe that the AG never knew about Fast and Furious or the gun scandal which resulted in the death of Mexicans and Americans, are insane. For such a controversial program, which could cause tremendous legal implications against the US government, to be implemented, it must be approved by the first legal officer of the country, the AG. It is surprising that the man who is authorized by the constitution to defend the US government on legal matters to claim he he didn't know anything about the whole operation. HE is a liar: you can tell by his own responses and his constant request for the chairman to repeat the questions; a classic delaying technique by lawyers.
No comments:
Post a Comment