This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
The Second Amendment is about
Self Defense The Second amendment is about self defense. It
is not about hunting, and it is not about the approaching King's Royal Army. It
was and is about self defense. That is just as important today as it was in
1776, or 1876, or 2006. The government (and no one knows this more than the
police) can not be there to protect any individual citizen. In fact, the courts
have ruled the police have no duty to protect anyone. Sure, we will do our best
to catch the killer, or rapist, or
burglar, but only after the damage is done.
It is up to individual citizens to protect themselves, their families and
neighbors. Your right of self defense does not stop at your doorstep. It is a
God given right. It is a basic instinct. Only modern day, politically-correct man is
arrogant enough to attempt to limit or infringe on what was given to us by God. Which parts of the Constitution, as written, do
not apply now? Particularly when it concerns the Bill of Rights? Which rights
are you willing to give up in order to be politically correct? Is not self
defense important in the year 2000? Sure, we do not have bands of raiding native
peoples attacking wagon trains, or cavalry troops charging into villages, but we
do have a very, very serious problem with a violent, decaying, immoral,
irresponsible and spoiled-rotten society. So if we ban the private ownership of firearms,
then by definition, only honest, law abiding people will surrender their weapons.
Then, we will have armed criminals, armed government, and the rest of us totally
at the mercy of each. It is a bit Utopian to think we can eliminate
violence by banning firearms. That is nonsense. There was violence, crime and
war for centuries and centuries before the invention of gunpowder. It would be
nice to live in a totally crime and violence free society, but do you really
believe that will happen by disarming private, honest, citizens? With over
20,000 gun laws on the books now, don't you think that just maybe the problem
may be people, and not machines? There is an element of truth to the old bumper
sticker, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." My heart breaks for those who have lost loved
ones to the senseless and brutal killings. I know the pain they feel. I wish it
were not so, but wishing does nothing to change the situation. I wonder what
would have happened, if the killer in Los Angeles today had walked into the
Jewish Community Center and was met with the receptionist or another staff member
who was armed? No, I believe he, and others like him, feel
some comfort in selecting targets that are relatively "safe" from
their point of view. We can all be comforted by the fact that the government has
seen to it that schools are gun free zones, and there are no lawfully carried or
possessed firearms to spoil their fun. And finally, I'll ask this question. If it were
a possibility that we could prevent another mass killing by not making a major
media event out of it, and spawning copy-cats, would you be willing to repeal,
infringe or restrict the First Amendment? Ron
Willis, Detective http://www.ci.gresham.or.us/departments/pd/headquarters.htm Disclaimer:
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer and not intended to
represent any government agency, whatsoever. |
||||||||||||||
