In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Gun Control: Opinion; or Treason?
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Gun Control: Opinion; or Treason?By: The HunterPublished 03. 16. 2002 at 22:45 PST With H&R Block joining the whimpering herd of corporate lemmings hurtling over the cliffs of public opinion, I believe the time has come to pose a vital question: can a freedom-loving American justify supporting gun control? L Neil Smith gave his answer some years ago, an essay every citizen should consider. The case has only become stronger since then. We have reached the stage where honest opinions can no longer differ on the principle of self-defense, and its ultimate expression, the right to keep and bear arms. There was a time when the factual record was unclear and reasonable thinking citizens could hold differing opinions, but that time is past. Dozens of legal, constitutional, historical, moral, ethical, and even grammatical scholars have examined the simple text of the Second Amendment with open, skeptical minds over the past 30 years or so. Some of them began with the stated intention of proving the pro-gun advocates wrong. Nearly without exception, they have come to publicly concede that these immortal words protect an individual right. So prevalent has this individual rights interpretation become that it is referred to in academic circles as the 'standard model'. Even the courts are (finally) beginning to notice, as exemplified by the Emerson decision. Honest differences of opinion may still exist whether this is a good or wise policy, but the fact must be faced that it is the highest law of the land. The clear prohibition charging that right "shall not be infringed" is an absolute barrier to legislation of any sort. The only peaceful and reasonable option left open for loyal Americans who disagree is to work for a Constitutional amendment, as is their legal right. Agree with them or not, at least I could respect those pursuing such a course. But that is not how the hoplophobes among us choose to proceed. They openly advocate ignoring that highest law of the land as if it does not exist, and using lethal force paid for by taxpayers against those who believe otherwise. This during a time of war when fanatical terrorists move among us at will, and the protection offered by firearms may be needed badly indeed. There is a word for aid to the enemy in a time of war, an ugly word: TREASON. If the anti-rights fanatics were simply honestly arguing the scientific merits of the overwhelming criminological and economic data that has been collected in recent years to support the utilitarian argument; that would be one matter. However, as Lott and Kleck and many others document, they don't. They engage in character assassination, deliberate lies, censorship, manipulation of the media, and habitual attempts to fabricate data supporting their case and make it part of the public record. The damning rebuttal(s) of Michael Bellisile's "Arming America" is only the very latest example of an anti-rights true believer casting aside all respect for integrity to attempt to fabricate the case which can not be made honestly - that "gun control" works. These are not the actions of "peaceful advocates". Fundamental rights are not subject to a majority vote. That is why they were placed in the Bill of Rights, which should have more properly been titled the "Bill of Limitations on Government Power". The intention was to place the minimum building blocks for freedom in a civil society forever beyond the reach of government control, and immunize them as much as possible from the passions of the day. Keeping those thoughts in mind, let us not mince words. Advocating the egregious violations of the rights of citizens under color of (unconstitutional) law is a crime. This is not just an abstract point, either. Researchers at the Chicago School of Law found that "approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravate assaults" can be shown to result from the morally bankrupt notion of outlawing the means to effectively defend oneself. How can anyone argue this does not rise to the level of deprivation of civil rights under color of law; a federal crime covered under the existing statutes1 in place for well over a century. Were the legal system to face the truth, many if not most of the anti-rights organizations could (and should) be prosecuted under the first (and stronger) Civil Rights Act of 1866. With every public official enacting or enforcing these unnatural laws charged as part of the conspiracy. Historians tell us this law was explicitly enacted with the 14th Amendment to stop precisely this sort of disarming of American citizens. They are still on the books, and still invoked quite widely by activist lawyers supporting OTHER "civil rights". Good citizens do not tolerate such vile tactics when applied other rights. No longer should we allow tyrants to cloak their actions as respectable debate on the right to keep and bear arms. Nor should we wait for the courts and the legal community to catch up. Just as surely as slavery was wrong 80 years and more before officials finally admitted as much, so is attempting to deprive people of the fundamental right of self-defense. Victim disarmament proponents are not just wrong, they are morally and I submit criminally wrong. In time history will judge them just as harshly. Willful ignorance of the law - and the facts - is no excuse. Hunter's Two Hundred Twenty-Eighth Rule: What price freedom? If you count the cost, you can't afford it.
1 I refer here to Title 42, Sections 1981 (equal protection under the law), 1982 (protection of property rights), 1983 (liability for deprivation of rights under color of law), and 1985 (conspiracy to deprive of rights under color of law), for any cares. Read it yourself, the text is quite clear. http://www.sierratimes.com/02/03/17/edth031702.htm c 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise
1 I refer here to Title 42, Sections 1981 (equal protection under the law), 1982 (protection of property rights), 1983 (liability for deprivation of rights under color of law), and 1985 (conspiracy to deprive of rights under color of law), for any cares. Read it yourself, the text is quite clear. http://www.sierratimes.com/02/03/17/edth031702.htm c 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise
Comments
kimberkid@gunbroker.zzn.com
? otherwise, you'll find an excuse.
"The 2nd Amendment is about defense, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."