Stand Your Ground, Stand Up For Your Rights

by lewwaters

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin 1759

MnutemanOver the years we have all heard the above quote or a disambiguation of it, usually from the anti-war crowd, twisting it to mean if we submit to any measure for security, we are not deserving of liberty.

What they and many others did not do, though, was to research the quote and its context. Had any done just a little research they would have discovered Ben Franklin was addressing those who would not accept one of the guns he purchased to help protect what was then the frontier from marauders and murderers.

“Those Who Would Give Up A Little Liberty To Gain A Little Security”

Sadly we are once again facing the claim of if we just give up a little bit of our liberty, that being our rights under the second amendment to bear arms freely, we can be safer and our children less likely to be slaughtered in schools or even on the streets in drive-by gang shootings.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Using the recent, tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, Barack Obama today announced he was signing 23 Executive Orders and memorandums he says will make us safer, with a back drop of children around him.

While I cannot say every proposal a bad one, ultimately we are expected to allow infringement upon our second amendment rights in order for Obama to make us safer. Or so he wants us to think.

For all of his talk over the years of “we cannot return to the failed policies of the past,” that is exactly what he is doing now, returning to failed gun control policies that did nothing to make anybody safer.

We had a so called “assault weapons ban” in effect from September 1994 to September 2004. We also saw some 32 School Shootings, including the deadliest High School shooting in our history, Columbian during that period. The ban did nothing to prevent a single one of them.

This time around we are seeing more red herrings thrown in designed to convince the general public how we must accept more infringement on our right to bear arms. Obama and others advocating more laws like using phrases such as “weapons designed for the battle field have no place on our streets.”

That statement is 100% true, but it is also very misleading as such fully automatic Military weapons are already banned for the general public, only those with special licenses willing to pay higher fees and keep them registered being able to purchase one. They are already highly regulated and few have the ability to even get near one.

Assault Weapons

But due to the appearance of several weapons we can legally have, semi-automatic firing, some even using the term “self-loading” lately, the effort is to discourage or ban those merely because they look scary.

Another red herring being used is the capacity of the magazine, most wanting them to be restricted to 10 or less cartridges. That a magazine can be changed out in just a couple of seconds slips by them as does a criminal or maniac arming themselves with several weapons. Empty the magazine, throw it down and pull out another.

Once again we see the call of “background checks” as if none are being done already. Even at gun shows, a licensed dealer must submit a background check before delivering a buyer a weapon, unless of course they possess a concealed carry license that would show they have already passed a background check.

There is a call to require such checks on private sales, but how will they enforce such a requirement? Criminals dealing in stolen or illegal weapons will not be rushing to have the latest forms required when selling such weapons from the trunk of their cars nor will there be much a background check of those smuggling illegal weapons in over our porous borders that both Obama and past presidents have refused to seal.

The futility of these ongoing attempts to disarm innocent citizens and infringe upon our second amendment rights was pointed out in a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy that stated, “Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not.”

We can see the same outcome right here in some of our larger American cities like Chicago, Illinois and Washington D.C., both of whom have stringent anti-laws and restrictions along with some of the highest murder rates in the nation.

We are supposed to believe these new measure are “reasonable” and “common sense.” They are not.

We are supposed to believe nobody is intending to take our guns away from us and disarm us. I don’t buy it. If that is not the ultimate goal, why then does the left always jump to such knee jerk reactions after a tragic shooting, almost always where guns are not permitted, of infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens instead of looking closer at potential root causes, such as the affects of Psycho-therapeutic drugs?

Since the intent of the second amendment is to give citizens the ability to ward off any despotic, overbearing government control over us, not hunting, we should we very wary of any effort to infringe on that right, regardless of promises to make us safer.

As Harvard discovered, it actually places us more in danger.

It’s time we stood our ground and stand up for our rights. Ruger Firearms has a page up on their website providing us with links to our elected officials along with a link to a letter to be sent to your elected representative telling them we want our rights preserved, not infringed upon.

We are seeing some states and County Sheriff’s standing their ground, informing the administration they refuse to enforce any new restrictions that violate the second amendment.

We need to stand with them and support them. We need to let Obama and others in government know our rights are sacrosanct and not open to negotiation.

We need to remind them they are public servants, not lords over us.

These are our rights and nobody should be allowed to fool us into believing if we just give them up a little, we will be better off.

11 Comments to “Stand Your Ground, Stand Up For Your Rights”

  1. Good post Lew. Appreciate the link to Ruger

  2. Lew,

    Right on target !!!

  3. Well, this gun-grabbing just got me back into the NRA.

  4. The NRA has manipulated it’s membership as well as the general public with its bogus 2nd amendment smokescreen on behalf of manufacturer profit effectively for close to 30 years now.

    It’s ingrained, that’s what boatloads of membership money and highly-organized advocacy can do. It’s been going on so long a lot of otherwise rational people now confuse simple, no-brainer common sense measures with malicious government tyranny.

  5. Oh Schuyler, I know you’re leftist, but this comment is ignorant from you.

    Bogus second amendment smoke screen? What part of “shall not infringe” is misunderstood?

    Funniest from you lefties, you complain about profits to private people, but also seek wage increases (profit) for yourselves. You demand taxes be increased, but do wb=verything you can to not pay every tax you should.

    As for your “simple, no-brainer common sense measures,” when does Obama institute those for himsself and his family? He signed into law measure that gives him and MO lifetime protection by armed guards, but we are supposed to remain unprotected ourselves?

    And just so you know, “common sense” says if criminals have easy access to illegal guns, I need to have easy access to a legal gun to offset their threat and protect myself and my family.

    Common sense would also dictate that you, with your anti-gun position, should identify your home as “proudly gun free” with a sign outside, just to let criminals know they are not permitted to bring their gun into your home in the case of a home invasion.

    Oh, and this little maneuver by Obama enticed me to rejoin the NRA too. I saw no need to belong before and allowed my membership to lapse. Obama has convinced me, as does your attitude, that I need to lend my voice to theirs.

    Let us know when you have your “gun free zone” sign up in your front yard.

  6. LW: While I cannot say every proposal a bad one, ultimately we are expected to allow infringement upon our second amendment rights in order for Obama to make us safer.

    Let’s consider the logic of this statement. …we are expected to allow infringement upon our FIRST amendment rights in order for [the government] to [insert desirable outcome].

    Many universities have “hate speech” codes that restrict “hurtful” speech. Should this be extended to the country at large? The left often shouts down those who offer positions counter to their core doctrine — the left also frequently calls people racists and other epithets rather than engage in a reasoned debate.

    Several religions insist that saying anything ill about them, their concept of god, or even depictions of their prophet is a form of heresy — and are seeking “reasonable” restrictions to prevent “insults” to their religion. (Often overlooked, is that such rules would also require other religions to not speak at all, because that, too, is considered an insult.)

    You can immediately see the folly in allowing “reasonable” infringements to our right to free speech.

    The Second Amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    While there has long been an argument about the meaning of “a well regulated Militia,” the Supreme Court has ruled (in the Heller case and some follow-on decisions) that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right. This is consistent with the background of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. (Recall that we ALREADY have the rights listed in the “bill of rights”, but that these first 10 Amendments were designed to ensure that Congress did not abridge the rights that already belong to all individuals.

    I further note that the meaning of the phrase “A well regulated Militia” was used with the meaning of “experienced,” not “rules and procedures.” The contrast is between “regular” soldiers vs. “irregular” soldiers. (Look up the meaning of regular.) The implication is that the Framers of the Constitution expected that citizens would practice with their weapons and from village-level groups to act as a Militia to practice the use of weapons as a group, to be called upon when necessary. I note that at the time of the Revolutionary War, the local Militia(s) through their members, often had firearms that were equal or superior to the firearms held by the standing army of the British Empire.

    Congress has already far exceeded the dictate of the Second Amendment. Many (perhaps most) might argue that the multitude of rules and regulations established are “reasonable” — and the Courts have generally taken this viewpoint — but the Courts have also often been swayed by political situations of the moment.

    It is interesting to review the history of gun laws in the United Kingdom (Great Britain). Up through the middle of the 20th Century, the U.K. had relatively mild gun ownership restrictions. But a couple of rampage shootings (1987 and 1996) led to “reasonable” restrictions on gun ownership — which by 1997 led to making ownership of nearly all guns (hand, rifle, shot) illegal. The effect of these rules are that criminals are free to prey on the law-abiding citizens with impunity, knowing that they will not be resisted by lethal force. Recent riots with extensive looting and home invasions showed how utterly ineffective the police were in “protecting” the population from aggressive criminals.

    The only conclusion to be drawn from the actions of the left and the Obama administration following the Sandy Hook incident is a blatant power grab with the ultimate intention to disarm the citizens through “reasonable” regulations that ultimately obliterate the Second Amendment. Note that I previously lived in California, where each year there are countless new “reasonable” laws passed by the state legislature that have increasingly made in more and more difficult to freely practice the inalienable right that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect. Fortunately, most of the worst bills fail to pass and become law or have been litigated and ruled unconstitutional.

  7. Speaking of which, does anyone know of a gun club or range that rents handguns for use at the range? I’m looking at different handguns but would like to test fire a few first.

  8. I guess I’m answering my own question – it looks like the Clark County Gun Club at English Pit rents them.

  9. Here’s a link to Washington’s Concealed Weapon reciprocity laws. Interesting that Illinois “Does not permit either its own residents or any non-resident to carry a concealed weapon, therefore no reciprocity possible.” – yet they have one of the highest murder rates in the nation. Taking a look at which States and districts don’t allow their own citizens 2nd Amendment rights, or severely curtail them, is a good list of places to stay away from.

    http://www.atg.wa.gov/ConcealedWeapons/Reciprocity.aspx#.UPiLg7HTncs

  10. Barrak “Chavez” Obama, um um um!!!

  11. I thought I would give Lew and every one else a heads up that SB 5282 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5282&year=2013 has been introduced that will state up a statewide database of civil commitments that health professionals, medical and DSHS along with courts may submit civil commitment, convictions for the reason of insanity and a few other things. Also they can submit this to federal law enforcement databases like NCIC and and on. If you would like to comment, please contact your Washington state senator…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 226 other followers

%d bloggers like this: