The Right That Secures All Others
Posted December 17th, 2007 by Da King
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 - Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not" - sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson
From Holder at AOL, July 31, 2007 (this was too good for me not to reprint): link
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun ! control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
I have to admit to you all up front that I am not a big fan of guns. Never have been.
But I own one. It's a 9mm, just like in the photo. I'm even less a fan of being a victim. And I am a big fan of the Constitution, so I understand the importance of all that I just reprinted above. As a Libertarian, I am suspicious when agents of the government want to take things away from me, whether it be my money, my guns, or my other rights. Needless to say, that puts me at odds with Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, etc. They want to take those things away. They are the ones who want me to be a "subject" rather than a "citizen". Then they add insult to injury by pretending it's all for my own good, as if I'm an infant. Man, how I hate that.
It's true that guns kill, but that is not a valid argument to ban them. I just listed 25 reasons why that would be a bad idea. Here's another one. A 'gun free zone' is also a defenseless zone. When Matthew Murphy walked into Colorado's New Life Church a week ago armed with 1,000 rounds of ammunition and a couple AK-47's, the only thing that kept him from killing maybe hundreds of people was security guard Jeanne Assam, armed and able to shoot back. If that church was a 'gun free zone', it would quickly have turned into a 'dead zone'.
But I also read the part of the Second Amendment about 'a well regulated Militia'. Yesterday on Meet The Press, host Tim Russert spent an hour attempting to paint Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney as a flip-flopping cult member, while skimming over all Romney's myriad accomplishments in about the first 30 seconds of that hour (not that there's a liberal media or anything. Gosh no). During the course of that program, Romney came down in favor of background checks prior to gun purchases, and also said he would have signed the assault weapons ban. I think background checks falls within the 'well-regulated' sphere of the Second Amendment. I don't want escaped mental patients walking into the nearest gun store and walking out with semi-automatic weapons. I like freedom, but I'm not crazy (no pun intended). I also don't have a big problem with an assault weapons ban. If it ever comes down to the citizenry needing Thompson sub-machine guns for protection, we are already in pretty much of an all-out war. Perspective matters. We don't want people driving around in Abrams tanks either.
Criminals will always get guns. We have no way to stop them. Making guns illegal definitely won't stop them. Drugs are illegal. Is it hard to get them ? Nope. Same with guns. Making guns illegal will only stop law-abiding citizens from having them, which will put them at the mercy of criminals. Not very smart. Nothing wrong with trying to make it harder for criminals to get guns, but law-abiding citizens have a right to own them, which must not be infringed.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:39 am
I have always wondered what that kid at Virginia Tech would have done if he found himself facing about 20 handguns all pointed at him in that classroom. I think he may have run in order to fight another day. By being unarmed and unwilling to charge the guy with the gun those kids were admitting to being subjects to the man with a gun in his hand.
December 17th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
The AOL post is right on, especially point 4 — "Gun control is not about guns; it's about control."
And this is why the Dims favor gun control. They feel, if the citizentry is disarmed, they, with their glib tongues and media stooges, will be able to talk America into socialism via the radical judges, regulations, and their assorted bull-crap.
That is why the King's reference to the right to bear arms, as the right that secures all others, is correct.
And he is further correct in noting that Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, etc. want us all to be a "subject" rather than a "citizen". That is the nature of the Left and the Dims today.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Well, initially, I would say that it all depends on what you mean by militia…..but since that's been dealt with, this is the part I don't understand: You say you are a libertarian, yet all you do on your posts is bash democrats while putting republicans up on a pedestal. Yet, how many rights have been infringed in the last 8 years? Next, can someone tell me where this liberal media is? Do any of you own televisions or radios? Please, if you want to say liberal print media, fine, but the majority of programming on television and radio is conservative. And that is the part of the media that most people are exposed to.
Finally, as for GOVF's statement:
"And this is why the Dims favor gun control. They feel, if the citizentry is disarmed, they, with their glib tongues and media stooges, will be able to talk America into socialism via the radical judges, regulations, and their assorted bull-crap"
Excuse me, but there were 6 years of conservative control of the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. If that is not control, what is? If there was something you wanted changed, you had full power OVER EVERYTHING.
King, you are obviously an intelligent man and many of your points are valid. They would be even moreso if you stopped the name calling and just pointed to facts. Your point about guns is well-taken. As an independent thinker, I could live without all put downs. It makes you look like you're running for President.
December 18th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Da Truth,
I don't believe I put Republicans up on a pedestal. Frankly, they have been a pretty big disappointment to me in the 2000's, though they did great in the 90's. I have written a piece about Romney where I pointed out his accomplishments, because all the mainstream media talks about is his religion, which is infuriating. I also wrote a piece about Giuliani that illustrated his success in cracking down on NYC crime, because all the mainstream media talks about is Giuliani's three divorces, Kerik, and that Giuliani is pro-choice. I take it as given that the mainstream media is predominantly liberal. I cite examples of it constantly (I just cited two more). Since you conceded print media, let's look at television and radio. On television there is one station that leans to the right (Fox News). Absolutely all the rest lean to the left. With radio, you do have a point. Talk radio is mostly right wing. But how about Hollywood ? Way to the left there. When's the last time you saw a television program or movie where the Republican politician was the good guy ? They are almost ALWAYS portrayed as evil. Even the sit-coms lean to the left. When you add it all up, you still have 80-90% of the mainstream media leaning left. In a poll about 3 years ago, 90% of reporters called themselves Democrats. The only sphere that leans further left overall than the media is in education. That is a liberal sanctuary. No surprise then that our quality of education is falling, even though we spend more for education than any other country in the world.
But I'm getting off the subject. It's true that I criticize liberal Democrats almost constantly, because they are socialists who oppose nearly everything a pro-american libertarian should believe in. The last thing the liberals got right may have been the Civil Rights movement (okay, there's probably other stuff too, but not much).
As for all the rights that have been taken away, please name one. All I see is an administration trying to fight against terrorists who are attempting to attack us. The attempted attack is the violation of libertarian principles, not the attempt to stop the attacks. I think terrorists have lost rights in america, but I don't care. I want them to lose rights. I want suspected terrorists to be wiretapped, tracked, imprisoned, and interrogated. National security is definitely not at odds with Libertarianism, or at least it shouldn't be.
I'll try to tone down the insults, but it won't be easy (and please tell the Reverend over at the Blog of Mass Destruction the same thing. Name-calling is half his schtick). After all, we have liberal Newsweek magazine giving terrorist Islamofascists like Ahmadinejad a public forum, as if he actually has something to say, other than propaganda. That makes me want to call them sorry scumba…, I mean, 'unwitting tools of the enemy'.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:51 am
I think 'tools' could be misinterpreted as a crude putdown, King.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:45 am
"The only sphere that leans further left overall than the media is in education. That is a liberal sanctuary. No surprise then that our quality of education is falling, even though we spend more for education than any other country in the world. "
Exactly!
December 18th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
The "everybody needs to carry a gun to protect themselves" meme is kind of what Mike Huckabee spins out. What I don't get is why a specific group wants to take us back over a hundred years or more to the Wild West. I don't get that.
Society has decided to have law enforcement folks go after the bad guys. The criminals. Isn't that true?
Every time there is a maniac who goes on a shooting spree, we have to go through this gun thing all over again. There's no reason for this. In virtually every case, if not every case, these perpetrators are mentally ill. I know you would agree, mentally ill people should not have access to guns.
Having said all that….the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with crime. It just doesn't. It is dishonest to take the gun ownership discussion out of the 'militia' construct the amendment places it in.
The amendment clearly places gun ownership, the right to bear arms, in the setting of a free people having to provide State security through a well regulated militia.
And that's all the amendment says.
Finally, Democrats do not want to take the guns away from American citizens. Regulate maybe but not remove.
You want less violent crime? Legalize drugs. You want less violent crime? Produce more $40K a year jobs. Less violence and crime? Education.
December 18th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
There's that 'meme' word Reverend. I knew you could pull it off!
December 18th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Mr. Roy,
Inasmuch as the Virginia Tech shooter was suicidal, I doubt he would have run. While you are wondering, wonder what it would be like to be a police officer arriving at the scene and trying to decide whose drawn weapon constituted a threat.
Mr. King,
I am a Second Amendment supporter but with reservations. There are legitimate reasons to own a weapon like hunting, sport shooting, and self defense. I also believe that laws against gun ownership are ineffective. That being said, I think it is important to understand what the authors of the Constitution had in mind. They believed that an armed citizenry was a bulwark against government tyranny; that if government went awry, the people should rebel and have the means to overthrow it. Of course, as events in Waco, and the crushing of stands made against the SLA, MOVE and other organizations has made clear, our government will brook no armed challenge. They also did not want the government to have a large standing army. This is the reason for the reference to militias.
As to the liberal media, I think that most people who complain of a liberal media are referring to the news media. It is true that Hollywood often give politicians negative portrayals, but I have never seen one identified as Republican. If you objectively look at the news media inclinations during our lifetimes, you will find that when liberals are in power, the news media tend to be more liberal. When conservatives rule, they tend to be more conservative. This is because the media is symbiotically deferential to those in power to preserve access. Without access, it is difficult to get information. So it is much easier to parrot the information the politicians impart than to challenge them through independent sources. During this administration, the questions that haven't been asked, the stories that haven't received adequate coverage, and the diversion of news into for profit entertainment have served us poorly. Why did no one ask how the defense systems of our capital were beaten on 9/11? How was it that no one was held accountable? How was it that even after Iraq was proven to be no imminent threat that 70% still believed that it was somehow to 9/11? Why is it that no one mentions that we already have an official definition of torture as indicated in the Geneva Conventions? One could go on and on, but as someone who has sought to enlist the news media in an effort against an entrenched political machine, I can assure you that few reporters are willing to risk their livelihoods even if presented with a smoking gun.
I wish you would do more research about libertarianism. Since libertarianism is concerned with the role government plays vis-a-vis its citizens, it is nonsensical to assert that terrorist can attack it. Libertarians believe in limiting government's role to defense of its citizenry. All other functions would be left ot the natural order of things. Liberalism taken to its extreme would create a government that smothers society. Conservatism taken to its extreme would lead to totalitarian government. Libertarianism taken to its extreme would lead to anarchy.
Libertarians have much to worry about with this government. In New Orleans, government confiscated the people's weapons immediately, hired a mercenary force to control the people (Blackwater), and subsequently took their property through condemnation.
Through laws passed and executive orders given the government is now free to violate your rights to keep and bear arms, your right of assembly, your right to privacy, your habeas corpus rights, your right to an attorney, your right to a speedy trial, your right to know the charges you are being held under, and many more. Although the presumptive target is terrorists, none of these laws or orders exempt citizens; citizens are being held. A libertarian, by definition, could not abide these usurptions of power by government.
I, too, want terrorists stopped. But I am not willing to lose our most precious liberties. It should be remembered that 9/11 did not occur due to lack of government power to prevent it. It occurred because the government failed to take action in face of intelligence warnings from within and other governments. Granting the government more intrusive power is like a zookeeper letting loose the lions in response to a tiger escaping.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Wow, Frank. I didn't know you had it in you!
You're especially correct about the media, whose worst fault is laziness rather than any kind of political agenda. Reporters don't compete for stories anymore, they read each other's stories and watch tv, then reword it all more often than not.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
King, thank you for your reply to my post. I don't read his blog, I would rather read insightful points from persons I generally disagree with. I don't know why, but unlike most people, I get bored reading people who agree with me. Where's the fun in that? Your posts, while sometimes offensive, are generally based on a clear point of view….one I generally don't agree with, but one I can clearly see.
I am surprised that, as a Libertarian, you are ok with how far the wiretapping and the cell phone thing has gone. I apologize if you have posted on that before and I have not seen it. If so, I would be glad to read it. I am somewhat new to your blog. I would say I agree with the Rev on the 'militia' thing.
Yes, Hollywood leans to the left, but I don't consider film media. I guess it is, but if you consider film art, all art is about the artist espousing their point of view based on their experience…or based on their want of a dollar. As for TV, I am not sure I agree with you, because I hear Glenn Beck's rantings ringing in my ears……..ouch. I think while Fox is the only clear cut conservative network, a larger portion of the programming on the others has a clear conservative bent. And, as you said, radio is a conservative stronghold, and I think largely responsible for the Republicans success. It took moveon to bring anywhere near that kind of power to the Dems, but it was way too late by then.
I might also argue your point on education, but I'm not sure I'm up to it on that one. I will say that education fails more because of how it is run than it does by who is doing the teaching. The best thing a teacher can have is an open mind, clearly more a trait of lefties than righties.
I know it will be difficult for you to quit calling lefties names, but I do appreciate your effort. If I ever find time for my own blog, at its core it will discuss how they really ain't that much different anymore…..are they?
December 18th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
King, I don't read that other blog you mentioned. I like to read yours because you generally have views that oppose my own. It's no fun reading people that agree with you; it's way more fun to be educated by the other side. Having said that, I appreciate your attempts to curtail the name calling. I know it will be hard at times, but it is appreciated.
Your point on the media is well-taken, especially Hollywood, but I think you might exaggerate a bit with TV. Although FOX is the only clearly conservative network, many of the others have a lot more programming that leans to the right than you cite. I hear the rantings of Glenn Beck ringing in my ears as I type this……
Also, I would be interested to see how, as a Libertarian, you are ok with the excessive use of wiretapping and intrusion into our phone calls. If you have posted on this subject before and I missed it, I apologize. I am new to this blog thing.
December 18th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
"If you objectively look at the news media inclinations during our lifetimes, you will find that when liberals are in power, the news media tend to be more liberal. When conservatives rule, they tend to be more conservative."
A truly delusional observation.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
I apologize for my redundant posts; unlike Al Gore and the other lefties, this internet thing still escapes me. I promise to do better in the future.
GOFV, why is it delusional? Actually, I think the opposite is true: Clinton was way more attacked than supported by the media and President Bush has suffered the same problem. But I would still be interested in hearing you support your argument.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:10 am
The media's MO is to put a postivie spin on things from the Dims (Left) and a negative spin when reporting on the GOP. This is attested to in numnerous studies especially of past presidential campaigns, the latest being Bush vs. Kerry.
As for Clinton, yes it's true that the media did report on his scandals … but only reluctently and often only after being prodded by the alternative media. Perhaps you recall how the lberal media was trying to bury the Lewinsky story when Drudge made that particular cover up impossible.
The bottom line on Clinton is that the media never gave his outrageous, over-the-top scandals the coverage they deserved. [By the bye: Top Dim's know this. And they know Bill Clinton is a pig. They just don't want the lower level kool-aid drinkers to know it. It's better for them and the Party if all concerened accept the myth that the mainstream media is objective.]
But the media is liberal. As the King as noted, some 90% of journalists vote Democratic. Only a fool could assume this doesn't effect coverage.
Ah yes, now that I recall. Journalist Evan Thomas, editor of Newsweek let the cat out of the bag. This influencial lefty was quoted during the the 2004 election as saying that the liberal slant in the mainstream media was worth 15% to the Dims. He was probably right. And think of what that means. If the media was objectives, the Dims would be routed. So, I guess we need a slanted media to make the races competitive, right?
December 19th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Wow….
When the media ALL joined in to push for a war of choice against a country posing no threat to America……was that conservative? If so, explain.
When the "liberal" NY Times in the year 2004, a re-election year for Junior, held back a true story about Bush's illegal spying on America and then AFTER the election printed it….who did that benefit, conservatives or liberals?
When the GE defense contractor owned network, MSNBC fired Phil Donohue just before the Great and Glorious invasion of Iraq, was it because MSNBC was liberal? Once again, if yes, explain.
Literally now, I could go on forever.
All one has to do is to read Eric Boehlert's book "Lapdogs" or recent material from Eric Alterman to understand the media is not liberal in carrying out their work of "reporting".
Once more, Keith Olbermann is the only person regularly seen on the teevee who could be considered liberal. There are no other liberal hosts of teevee news shows….none.
Conservatives simply hate Media Matters.com because there in all it's glory is documented every word, every guest, every issue talked about by this fictitious liberal media.
It is true that "reporters" need and desire "access" to the powerful, but that in no way explains the media bashing of the Clintons for 8 straight years and the failure of the media to seriously question, and follow up on the questions, to Bush administration officials.
Still to this very day….only Olbermann has busted out of the timid camp of his media colleages to call Bush what he is….a liar. But Clinton's lie? We're still being bombarded by that one by the so-called liberal media.
Finally, which party is FOR deregulation of the media? The Bush FCC just approved another deregulation of media so that folks like the devil Murdoch can also deceive the public with a newspaper AND a teevee station in your town soon.
American media today is madeup of huge multi-billion dollar enterprises. The political party that, without question, is willing to help these monied groups with more tax breaks and deregulation is the Republican party.
That's the motivation for what we have witnessed over the past 20 plus years or so. Money drives everything in America. The media leans to the right because that's the political party that will hand them the pot of gold.
Ain't complicated.