Here we go again.
Every time more than one person is killed with a gun our “leaders” begin talking about gun control. No one seems overly concerned when people die one at a time…
Martin O’Malley has said publicly that he is ready to do for America what he did for Maryland. Consider that for a minute. Baltimore…is in Md. There have been a record number of murders in Baltimore recently. In spite of restrictive gun laws. So what exactly does Mr. O’malley propose to do?
That is the crux of the question, and one no one seems willing to answer. The leaders chant gun control over and over, and then the liberal base and liberal media take up the chant, like a bunch of college students at an Obama rally. “Yes we can!” “Yes we can!” Well, it turns out that no…you can’t. But hey, it sounded good right?
When you ask a chanter a specific question, you get vague answers. That’s because their ideology is not based on logic or reason, it’s based on emotion. Let me illustrate.
What proposed law or amendment to a current law would have prevented the shootings in SC? An assault weapons ban? He didn’t use an “assault weapon” (which is stupid in and of itself. Name a weapon that when used does not “assault” the target). Ammo capacity restrictions? He shot 9 people. You only need 9 bullets to do that. Better background checks? From what I understand the gun was a gift.
The fact that all these recent shootings are taking place in locations where guns are prohibited should be a clear indication of what the actual problem is. A school. A church. Military bases. A theater where concealed carry was prohibited. All have one thing in common. They were full of unarmed, sitting ducks. Has there ever been a mass shooting at a gun range? How about a police department? No? I wonder why.
The press repeatedly states that “studies show” that armed citizens have never successfully stopped a mass shooting. Yeah, because the shootings take place where no one is armed but the perpetrator. However, think about that for a minute. The police are armed citizens. The military are armed citizens. Of course they (supposedly) receive a lot of training. But in NYC a couple of years ago two cops engaged an armed suspect on the street. The cops shot 9 innocent bystanders trying to hit the criminal. So much for the superior training the police receive.
We routinely hear that we need to find a way to control access to guns that respects the rights of hunters and sportsmen. No one has the balls to say that it is not hunters and sportsmen whose rights need to be respected. The Second Amendment wasn’t written for deer hunters. It was written so that citizen militias could protect themselves and their communities against a tyrannical and overbearing government. Don’t take my word for it. Here is but a portion of the writings of our Founders on the topic. Note that hunting is never mentioned.
- “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
- “Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
— Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
- “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
— Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
- If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
— Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
- “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
— Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
- “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
–James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
- “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
–John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
- “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
–Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
- “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
–Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
- “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
–Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
- “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
— Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
- “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
- “The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …”
So what about racism? Isn’t it evil, hateful, hurtful and stupid? Why yes, it is all of these things. In my opinion hating someone simply because of the color of their skin is asinine. In fact, “hating” anyone is really a waste of mental energy. In my view we should all deal with each individual as an individual and like or dislike them based on character and personality. Not on race or ethnicity. But that is MY VIEW.
One of the key concepts we seem to have lost in this politically correct age is the simple fact that you do not need protection for popular speech. You need protection of UNPOPULAR speech. Hence the First Amendment.
If we allow an affront to our senses and sensibilities to push us to the point where we as a society, in a vain attempt to silence the mouths of men without changing their hearts, lead a federal assault on the First Amendment, we are doomed as a nation. Consider for a moment a United States where it is illegal to speak your mind if your thoughts offend someone, and where the populace has been divested of all but but a handful of essentially useless firearms (from a self-defense perspective). What then is our defense against a police state? How is life here different from the future portrayed in George Orwell’s book of prophecy, 1984?
Do I think it is right, or normal, or acceptable to be a racist? No I do not. Do I think you have the right to be a racist, and to say so publicly? Yes I do.
The government cannot mandate the content of the minds and hearts of the citizenry. When it tries to do so you end up with places like Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany…or Chavez’s Venezuela. If those are places that appeal to you, then keep supporting policies which disarm the public and outlaw hate speech.
The very notion of “hate crimes” does insult to the idea of a free society. As a white man my life is as valuable as the life of a black man. Murder is a crime. The law values all lives equally in the context of murder. But when we introduce hate crimes in to the mix we change the equation. We make the lives of some citizens more valuable than the lives of other citizens, based on the motive the murderer had in his or her mind at the time of the killing.
We also apply these laws unequally. When 1 white guy kills 9 black people in SC because they were black, that’s a hate crime. But when a mob of 15 to 20 black men chased down and beat a white man in Furgeson, Missouri that was simply an assault (and to my knowledge no one was ever charged). Presumably because only white people are capable of hate??
The calls for the removal of the Confederate flag are similarly misplaced.
To be clear, I do not live in SC, and I do not care what flag or flags they fly. But what I do care about is dealing with a problem in a way calculated to actually fix the problem. I care about truth and honesty. I care about integrity. The push to take down the flag has none of these qualities.
There have been some pictures circulated of the church shooter holding the Confederate Flag. For him it was a symbol of his racism. But I am not a racist, and I have Confederate imagery on shirts and other nicknacks around my home. What if the young man had been holding an I-phone? What if he was wearing an AC/DC shirt? Would we be calling for the removal of these images?
You may say that those things are not images that invoke racial hatred. Okay, fair enough. So let’s also remove all shirts and hats with a big white “X” on them. Let’s remove the “black power” fist. Let’s remove the flags at the U.N. of every nation that supports hate and intolerance on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation, starting with every nation in the middle east.
The simple fact is that the Confederate Flag was the symbol of a nation in which slavery was legal. We do business with such nations to this very day. Yes, there was a component of slavery to the civil war. Yes, some of the armies fighting in it were fighting to preserve the practice. But many of those men fighting on the Confederate side were fighting simply for the right of individual states to set their own path, as the Founders intended. They were fighting against an all powerful federal government with its’ fingers in everybody’s pie, like the one we have today. They were fighting for federalism, states rights, and autonomy. And they are a part of the history of this nation.
For me, and people like me, that flag represents a rebel spirit. It represents individualism and a belief in the 10th Amendment. It represents federalism and a belief in a small central government. And it represents a heritage of like minded people, willing to lay down their lives to defend those principles. When I see it I do not think of hate, or even of black people at all. I think of the things above.
Racism in this nation will not end with the removal of a flag or the passage of legislation making certain speech illegal. It will not end with hate laws or extra punishment for “hate crimes”. It will end when people stop teaching their kids to dislike or hate other people based on the color of their skin. All people! Including black people!
So the next time some liberal politician spouts off some feel good nonsense about how we need to do something to stop these crimes, think long and hard about it before you start nodding in agreement. Passing laws restricting the freedom of speech or the freedom to own firearms will not stop people from hating each other. It will not prevent tragic deaths or end racism. It will not even end mass murder. What it will do is move us one step closer to a police state where only the authorities have weapons. Where what you think becomes a crime, and unjust laws are enforced by a government no longer concerned that the people might rise up and reject them.
If you want to live in a place like that there are many of them. Take your pick…your plane is waiting. But if you believe what President Obama said, that these things do not happen in other advanced nations, then you have already forgotten about the Charlie Hebdo attack, in France, where even the regular police don’t have guns.