 |
| America and Firearms: Forever Intertwined |
THE SACREDNESS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Supporters of the Second Amendment will always argue about the importance of it. The Founders of our nation expressly wrote our right to own firearms into The Constitution because they felt it to be of special importance. And although I also agree, I too realize that the Second Amendment is no more sacred than any other right Americans have, including the rights to basic safety, security and peace of mind. Americans have every conceivable right (so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others), regardless of whether it is written into The Constitution or it is not. And although our Founders and our citizens may find certain rights to be more important than others, none are more sacred than any other. All must be respected.
LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES: Limiting the capacity of gun magazines means that a shooter will have to stop to reload more frequently (unless the criminal has decided that obtaining illegal large capacity magazines is a more taboo crime than murder) and give bystanders more opportunity to tackle and subdue the shooter. This makes perfect sense. Except that if there is a prison break and I have to defend myself against a dozen or more felons that wish to do me harm, I don't want to be tackled and subdued while I attempt to change magazines. This is the big flaw in the left's argument about large capacity magazines. The prison break scenario is unlikely to occur but who knows what threats a person may have to protect themselves against? Rioting following an earthquake or other natural disaster, an eruption of gang violence or a drug deal gone bad. It is just not reasonable to punish the law-abiding citizen in an attempt to prevent a criminal from having something that they can get easily on the black market or secondary market anyway. Thirty round magazines for rifles and ten round magazines for pistols is a good compromise.
[Now, I speak purely hypothetically because I don’t believe that we have a government interested in bringing about tyrannical rule at this time. As much as I feel that government is corrupt, wrong-headed and dysfunctional, I don’t think government is attempting to subvert democracy or declare martial law. I do think that many people in government and those forces that influence government would want to do so if they felt they could. But we are a long way away from that becoming a reality.]
It is erroneous to think that the aforementioned government resources would include the soldiers required to operate the machines and weaponry. Our soldiers swear an oath to the country and to The Constitution, not to the government. No soldier should ever commit acts of aggression towards the citizens of the United States. If the government turned tyrannical and ordered attacks on citizens, soldiers should (and I believe most would) disobey those orders and fight with citizens to restore democracy and order.
If tyranny became the goal of government officials at some point, they could conceivably contract a mercenary army like KBR or Academi (formerly Xe, Blackwater)—provided those American contract soldiers have greater allegiance to their company, their government and/or to money than they do to their country. Our government could also hire foreign soldiers but those fighters would need to be trained to operate the machines and weapons that would make the government such an imposable force.
Looking beyond the hypothetical, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the future of the nation and how citizens can get control of government. I believe that we are long overdue for a revolution of some kind and I am hoping for a non-violent one. I believe that it is not only possible but necessary.
Those who do not believe that gun ownership is a realistic check against government tyranny sometimes bring up the government actions against the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX as evidence of the futility of citizens standing against government. Although the Davidians lost one battle (their lives and compound), they won a very significant battle which was to make themselves an example to other citizens about how the government can treat its citizens. People like me took notice. We saw the propaganda and lies the government told to explain how those people, including women and children died. It further eroded my trust in government and gave me more motivation for finding a way to achieve a non-violent revolution to address what I feel are serious and potentially disastrous flaws in the constructs of government and in how it operates. The killing of the Branch Davidians didn’t spark a revolution, likely because they were an odd group--if not potentially dangerous to the community--they were arguably potentially dangerous to themselves and to the children living in the compound.
The government should have no reason—aside from greedy self-interest—to oppose a non-violent revolution, intended to restore democratic principles that have been perverted by special interests over the years. If the government did oppose such an effort, all citizens of the country would have to ask why the government would oppose common sense reforms that are supported by a majority of the population. People would have to wonder why the government would want to oppose fellow citizens who were simply interested in making corrections to government machinations that would lead to a freer citizenry, more effective government, a more prosperous nation, a more just society: a more perfect Union.
~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/
