In light of the fact that today is the day we celebrate and honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and also the day that the first African American president is sworn into office for his second term, I would like to take some time to discuss that president's call for gun control. I know that some people may be quite offended by my tying gun control in with racism. However, I feel that gun control may not even exist as an issue if it weren't for slavery and racism.
Slavery will forever remain a deep scar for this country. It was an abomination. It went against every ideal upon which this country was founded. The founders had made the dreadful mistake of allowing to continue what never should have begun. It wasn't until the mid-1860's that an attempt was made to remedy this. The attempt brought on a bloody war that tore the country apart. Although the Civil War did result in the abolition of slavery with the 13th and 14th amendments, it was only an attempt to right this wrong. The average freedmen in the south were still forced to live and work under much of the same conditions that they had to endure as slaves. They were thrust into a bitter world with nothing, and had to do what was necessary to survive.
One of the fears in the south at this time was that these newly "freed" slaves would attempt to rise up from these conditions. After all, the 14th amendment had declared them citizens with all of the rights of any other citizens. This list of rights included the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. What would be a more frightening idea to a former slave owner who was still treating these men as slaves than for these men to arm themselves and revolt? These former slave owners, many of them wealthy politicians, had to find a way to make sure that this did not happen.
The initial attempt to stave this situation off was to raise the price of firearms and to tax ammunition. As many of these former slave owners were politicians, this was not too difficult a thing to accomplish. Seeing as these newly freed slaves had no money and little way to earn money, that solved the plantation owners' dilemma for the time being. However, there were occasionally some men that were able to scrape and save a little bit and may someday be able to afford firearms. As a result of this thinking, these politicians began to draft new laws to dictate who may and may not own firearms. At the time, there was little ambiguity as to why these laws were being passed. However, over time they had to disguise them better.
Gun control was born of slavery and racism. To many, gun control still means slavery. Our second amendment is not in place so that we can hunt. It was put in place so that we might remain free from tyranny, in whatever form it comes. I realize that the many tragedies involving lunatics with guns and the deaths of innocent people weigh heavily on the hearts and minds of all of us, as well they should. I wish that there was an easy solution, but there is not. If I truly thought that giving up our second amendment rights would save the lives of innocent people and still keep our country as it should be, I would consider giving them up. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
The media has so demonized gun-ownership that law-abiding citizens are afraid to stand up for themselves. That is the beginning of tyranny. That is the beginning of a new slavery. When a president, one man, can sign twenty-three executive orders violating the second amendment to our constitution and not be questioned about it, it is clear that there is no longer power in the people. We have given up our rights for a false sense of security. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I was glad to read your views on this, I believe you're the NRA member, and you didn't say too much in class. I think it can be difficult to speak up when your opinion may not be the most popular in any given situation.I never knew the history surrounding gun control and slavery but that makes sense. I think times and reasons have changed, but it's still a valid point. I also agree that weapons aren't available for the sake of just hunting. My views are that gun control is different than disarmament. I don't understand the need for assault weapons unless someone is preparing to protect themselves from the government. I sincerely would like the opinion of a responsible gun owner on the purpose of assault weapons.
ReplyDeleteI understand the second amendment, "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," to purposely begin with the term "a well regulated militia"...I think this could be our military or another non governmental militia. I am not sure whether the purpose of the 2nd Amendment considered the ability of people to stockpile weapons. I don't think weapons were massed produced as they are today when this was written, which is a factor.
Another fact of the matter- our freedom. I really believe our freedom has been severely limited for a long time. During Katrina, the citizens of New Orleans were disarmed by the National Guard as homes were searched (hard to believe but well documented.) The Patriot Act, the forced end of the OWS picketing, the blatant silencing of the Democrats during the DNC last year (on the vote for wording to their platform) are all examples. I believe that if we ever needed to defend ourselves against tyranny it would be impossible, in terms of force (unless it involved a high-level coup attempt, another discussion.) The US Military (which, I am a combat veteran so don't take it as bashing)has more resources, including Air Power, than any group of citizens could hope to acquire.
I would really like to know what you think about these things, because outside of the media hype and a few extremely fear-gripped family members, I don't have the opportunity to hear the pro-gun side very much. And, outside of the fear on BOTH sides, I know there's a lot to learn. Admittedly, I don't own a weapon, but believe people have the right to (outside of assault/tactical style weapons)..Thanks again for the post. :)
I appreciate your response. To be honest, I don't personally know any irresponsible gun owners other than the lunatics I see on the news. The NRA is constantly referred to as a "lobbyist group" which I find to be a bit offensive. The NRA is over 5 million American citizens concerned about their second amendment rights.
DeleteThe Supreme Court, a few years ago, handed down their decision that the second amendment applies to the individual citizen. This was not news to me, but some were surprised. These are the ones who get caught up on the "well-regulated militia" part and see it as definitive evidence that it only pertains to our government having a military. These are also people who don't seem to have read much of the other writing from the framers of the constitution. The way that I have always interpreted that phrase is that we are being told that BECAUSE our government will have a well-regulated military, the citizens need to be armed as well. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Assault weapons do not exist. At least, they didn't exist until the late 1980's when an anti-gun journalist coined the phrase. Before that time, they were just rifles. These rifles were in existence for some time. The problem for the anti-gun lobbyists was that not enough people were afraid of them. To refer to them as "assault" weapons means that they are somehow more deadly and evil. Don't get caught up by a created term. The rifles themselves are no more dangerous than they ever were before.
As for the defense of citizens against the US military, you are correct, there would be little that could be done. However, and God forbid it should ever happen that we would have to do so, I would prefer to have the choice as to whether I am armed with a nice rifle or forced to throw rocks. There is also the benefit that foreign militaries don't want to attack the US on our own soil. They realize that many Americans are well armed and will defend their country. The Japanese knew this during World War II. As many countries as the US government like to anger on a regular basis, I would hate to think of the foreign forces that would want to ruch in should our citizens be disarmed.
There are no easy answers to these questions, unfortunately. I wish that I could come up with something better. I hope that this helps you see things from another perspective.
I wanted to add one more thing about "assault" weapons. The definition is changing on what an "assault" weapon is which also means that it is a meaningless term. There are 4 main criteria for a rifle to be considered an "assault" rifle: bayonet lug, folding butt-stock, pistol grip, and flash suppressor. The old definition under Bill Clinton's Assault Weapons Ban in the 1990's(which incidently was proven to make no impact on crime whatsoever) was that a rifle had to have two of the four afforementioned characteristics. Obama has decided that it should now be an "assault" weapon if it has only one of the four characteristics. The fact that these qualifications are diminishing is alarming. After all, it is only a matter of time before all it takes to be considered an "assault" weapon is a trigger.
DeleteThe first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are referred to as the Bill of Rights. These are the rights of the citizens that the federal government and its officials are sworn to uphold and protect. It is very symbolic of the entire system that one of these "rights" is able to be so limited. If the government is able to remove one of these rights from the Bill of Rights, then the rest of them mean absolutely nothing. We will no longer have rights, only a shortened list of government regulated priviledges that can be taken away without notice upon the decision of a few.
Also, I like your blog title. I still haven't come up with a good one!
ReplyDelete