See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Letters to the Editor irt Right to Bear Arms
Source:
me
URL Source: http://none
Published: Sep 26, 2008
Author: me
Post Date: 2008-09-26 19:44:08 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: Keep and bear arms, second amendment
Views: 99
Comments: 6
Senseless violence is a part of American History (This is the title that the editor gave my letter, not necessarily what I would have used--I deleted my name and the name of the Dr. I was replying to) Dear Editor, Dr. Henry ________'s claim that the shootings at Virginia Tech was the "single worst incident of its kind in American history" which ran in last week's issue of the paper is just plain wrong. Not that it wasn't bad enough, but apparently the good Dr. has forgotten Waco and the government's victims there. Almost three times as many innocent people were killed at Waco. The government, through its agents, kill people on a fairly regular basis, many of them innocent people. Yet, people like Dr. ________ seem to believe that if even more people were disarmed things would be better. If just a few people at Virginia Tech had had their own firearms think of how much differently that might have turned out. But I think there is one thing about which we can all be quite certain—disarming the innocent will only make them easier prey for people like Cho and government agents who believe that civilians are for target practice (as in the case with Randy Weaver's wife and son. Randy's wife was murdered by a government agent—she was "armed" with her baby. Randy's son was shot in the back by some of the same brave agents). I understand Dr. _______'s argument but don't agree with it. As a constitutionalist my idea of "gun control" is hitting what you aim at. And the founders idea of "gun control" was that every citizen should be armed with the same weapons as the soldiers to aid in an invasion and, when it became necessary, to throw off a government grown tyrannical and despotic. There is PLENTY of information available which refutes the preposterous idea that all that is meant by the "militia" mentioned in the second amendment is something like the National Guard. For those who have access to the internet there are many articles about what the militia is and the fact that there is more than one militia. There is the organized militia and the unorganized militia. Those who argue against the right of an individual to own firearms and insist that it only applies to an agency of the government argue with something less than complete knowledge of their claims. One very good article called The Right to Bear Arms: A Reply by Charles Cantrell can be found at this link: http://www.guncite.com/journals/cantrell.html. For whatever it's worth Dr. ________ should consider the company he keeps when he argues in favor of more "gun control." The greatest proponents of "gun control" have been wonderful folks like Adolf Hitler who said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." (as quoted in his Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier, April 11, 1942). Additionally, the worst school massacre in this country was not even the result of the killer using guns. On May 18, 1927 Andrew Kehow blew up a school in Bath, Michigan, killing 45 people, 37 of them children. After detonating explosives under the school, "maniac bomber" Andrew Kehoe, a school board member and treasurer and farmer, blew up his pickup truck killing himself and the Bath school superintendent. Finally, I leave it to the reader to consider the following statement by Daniel D. Polsby, Washington University Law Quarterly, Volume 73, Number 3, Fall 1997: "Contemporary scholars have little explored the preconditions of genocide. Still less have they asked whether a society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. Though it is a long step between being disarmed and being murdered—one does not usually lead to the other—but it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not one of the principle genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed." That was my first reply to Dr. _______ and in fact the first letter to the editor of any paper in quite a while. Here is my reply to his latest effort to propagandize people into thinking that giving up their arms would be a good thing. Dear editor, Further response to Dr. _______ would seem to be a futile endeavor since he holds blindly to the notion that the only thing the militia is is a unit of government like the National Guard. That is not the case but he is certainly entitled to believe that if that is what makes him rest easy. But for those who would rather know the truth the fact is that rights, by definition, belong to the citizens. And it is also a fact that the militia is composed of able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 and being in the military or NG has nothing to do with it. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal" and "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," while governments derive their "powers" from the consent of the governed. The Constitution and Bill of Rights repeatedly refer to the "rights" of the people and to the "powers" of government. The Second Amendment clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The purpose of this right is to protect the security of a free state from the centralized government by maintaining a militia. A militia by definition is made up of able bodied ordinary citizens. This definition precludes the National Guard units run by the individual states as being the militia alluded to in the Second Amendment. And his strawman argument about the Patriot Act is preaching to the choir, at least with me. I have NEVER supported it because it is unconstitutional. But keep on building those strawmen, Doctor. Someone else may have a use for them. Finally, Dr. ________ said that, "As far as domestic despots, I don't care much for George Bush and you may not have liked Bill Clinton, but even in the case of Bush infringement of person(al) liberties has been modest..." The fact is that neither George Bush, Bill Clinton nor any and all of the members of Congress, Senate or the Judiciary have the right to infringe on personal liberties one iota. A "modest" infringement only leads them to believe that major infringements are also fine so long as they can justify it in their own minds (and those who would rule over others can ALWAYS justify tyranny in their own minds).
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
Dear Government, Try to take my arms and I'll shoot you per the 2nd Amendment. Rgds, Citizen of the Republic
There you go.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Excellent responses. Next one, try and link the readers to freedom4um.com where they can learn more Constitutional factoids, etc...anything to rip the blinders off the sheep. We are down to the nut cuttin'.
A nation of mullets, ruled by inbred, moronic traitors.
Thanks lodwick. I don't even remember how long ago those letters were in the paper but it has been a good while. I quit writing letters to the editor, at least to that particular paper, when they didn't print one I sent them about Bush saying he would renew Clinton's so-called "assault weapons ban" if Congress would pass it. Apparently it is not cool to point out that Bush is an idiot and doesn't even know the definition of an "assault weapon"--in that regard it seems that most of the people in government lack any understanding of that particular issue. To them, if it has a scope and will fire more than one round it must be an assault weapon. Of course, we peons can't just go into the hardware store and buy an actual assault weapon but the goons who protect these morons all have them.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Amen! Don't get me started - we are exactly on the same page (of the Constitution) on this on. One more: the FF would have us have nukes, fighter planes, and whatever ever else the gov has in its arsenal...it is not for 'deer hunting.'
A nation of mullets, ruled by inbred, moronic traitors.
That's a sore point with a lot of people, usually the ones who wish to deny reality.
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#2. To: X-15 (#1)
Lord Acton
#3. To: James Deffenbach (#0)
#4. To: lodwick (#3)
Lord Acton
#5. To: James Deffenbach (#4)
(Edited)
To them, if it has a scope and will fire more than one round it must be an assault weapon. Of course, we peons can't just go into the hardware store and buy an actual assault weapon but the goons who protect these morons all have them.
#6. To: James Deffenbach (#4)
they didn't print one I sent them about Bush saying he would renew Clinton's so-called "assault weapons ban" if Congress would pass it.
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest