Unlearned Hand pointed me to this position paper by he ACLU on Gun Control. I was enthralled to find that I and the ACLU share the same opinion when it comes to the Second Amendment "Right to Bear Arms":
If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please.It has always been my opinion that the last effective review of how the Second Amendment "Right to Bear Arms" applied in modern times was the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, and we all know how that turned out. The real historical reasoning behind the enactment of the Second Amendment was a result of the kingly English tradition of armed soldiers commandeering the homes of private citizens. As no one* would believe that our neighbors have the right to possess such weapons are would be necessary to repel an invasion by out own government, any argument that we have a RIGHT to possess any weapon have been entirely superseded by the advancement of technology.
However, I am mindful, despite all the contentions that militias are no longer necessary, that a citizenry who is armed can easily become a guerrilla force should their country be invaded by outside forces.** To be in a position to defend one's country should be a RIGHT. I would argue that having an assault weapon or surface-to-air missile would be highly beneficial should one need to repel an invading force. So where do we draw the line?
In Colonial days, armies fought with cannon, muskets, bayonets, swords and lances. In the early days of the Nation, there were no regulations which forbid anyone from owning a cannon, a musket, a bayonet, a sword, or a lance. Until the 20th Century, except in some townships where the local Sheriff dictated, one was not disallowed to carry a weapon. Parts of the Nation were still wild and predatory, and many people hunted for survival. However, technology boomed near the beginning of the 20th Century and by the end of the Great War (WWI), there were weapons that had been developed that some wished had not been even imagined. There are far too many such weapons now. It is only fair to select those weapons that we wish to have in the possession of our citizenry and those we do not.
However, other than being easily concealed, for militia purposes, rifles are far superior to handguns. I, personally, am of the opinion that the security of the Nation would be better protected if we allowed the possession of assault weapons and banned the possession of handguns.
I am thoroughly satisfied to leave the entire issue of GUN CONTROL safely in the capable hands of the National Rifle Association. I may not always agree with their stance, but I am glad they are there.
*I know there is always at least one crack pot who will be contrary to public opinion, so "no one," in this context, means "no one with any sense."
**I never knew how true it was, but my dad used to tell me that the Swiss men were all militarily trained and were issued a rifle which they kept in the closet. They had no standing Army, but their entire adult population could become an Army at any time. I also still remember the movie, Red Dawn, in which the young adults of one town effectively countered an invading Soviet force.
Posted by Tiger at June 14, 2003 02:28 PM
To really understand what's going on in the United States, Britain, Canada, and Australia today with regard to civilian weapons ownership and self defence, we need to see it from the globalist perspective.
Under the fast-approaching, liberty-shattering 'New World Order' so beloved by Tony Blair, both of the Bushes, and the US and UK political elite, there will be NO personal weapons of any kind permitted, nor any 'culture of violence' [i.e. no potential future resistance].
For a good introduction to the elite's ultimate goals in this, from a U.S. perspective, see "GUN CONTROL AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER' at http://www.survivalistskills.com/nwa.htm as well as 'OPERATION GARDEN PLOT' at http://www.survivalistskills.com/GDNPLOT.HTM and 'THE PLANNED US AND CANADIAN CONCENTRATION CAMP AND DETENTION CENTRE PROGRAM' at http://www.survivalistskills.com/camps.htm.
The rational and normal mind recoils from the idea that a nation's leaders might be at perpetual war with their own people in pursuit of some higher, global goal. But read "The U.S. Public Warms To The Idea Of Civilian Concentration Camps" at http://www.survivalistskills.com/CONCAMP.HTM [This is a long page, slow to load, but well worth it. Be sure to see the quotes and astonishing photographs at the end of the article!], and reflect on how consistently this occurs, and how easily the general public are pursuaded to applaud and agree with their own loss of rights.
[for a similar perspective on the same process at work in Canada and the UK, see "How Canada Lost Its Liberties And Freedoms - And Few Cared!" at http://www.survivalistskills.com/CANLIB.HTM and "How Britain Legislated Away 2,000 Years Of Rights And Freedoms" at http://www.survivalistskills.com/UKLIB.HTM]
Still unpersuaded? "TRAGEDY AND HOPE", by Professor Carroll Quigley, is a virtual 'blueprint' of the political elite's game-plan for accomplishing their 'New World Order' by guile - and by force, where need be. Read the huge array of quotations from political and other leaders on that page, and ask yourself whether they have not already accomplished much of what they need to achieve in order to turn the world into a giant 'global plantation', where they are the unresisted masters.
There's a substantial archive of other fascinating and invaluable 'New World Order Intelligence Update' articles on the New World Order at http://www.survivalistskills.com/sect22.htm and archived also at http://www.rarehistorybooks.com/NWOLINKS.HTM. The 'NWOIU' site itself is currently down for substantial re-construction, but these archived articles are well worth reading.
One extraordinarily interesting page, at http://www.survivalistskills.com/GUNQUOTE.HTM, provides a large number of famous and favourable quotations on the citizen's right to keep and bear arms AND a warning from Britain on the results of surrendering that right!
All of us will ultimately be the victims of this global drive to eliminate the means - and even the very thought - of self defence.
Posted by: John Whitley at July 29, 2003 11:34 PM