To the editor:
The gun debate: why have guns at all? Like the misconception over separation of church and state, much misunderstanding has evolved since our federal Constitution was written, usually at the hands of those who believe in centralization of governmental power. Our Constitution is based upon cherished concepts gleaned from historical experience, lessons learned from what has worked, and what to avoid that would destroy freedom. This remains relevant even today as back then.
The First Amendment is not merely a list of rights, but a highway to logical, methodical, and sane change that would keep our government accountable to the people. First; we have the right to seek and act upon truth, practicing precepts that truth demands. Second; we have the right to share what we have found in our search for truth with others, both in direct speech, as well as in the media. We have the right, not to riot, block road ways, nor destroy property, but to peacefully assemble with those who also support that shared truth. Lastly, we have the right to address our personal and corporate concerns with our government through petition/courts. But what happens when our government purposely ignores, suppresses or persecutes us for doing so?
Our Declaration of Independence gave us the answer, then and now. We are to remain patient and forgiving for our government’s imperfections. However, when it becomes obvious that our rights are being purposely and methodically squelched, and our petitions are rebuffed, the Declaration tells us the it is not merely our right to challenge/change that government, but our duty/obligation to do so. After all, it is still called “The American Revolution.”
The Second Amendment is separated from the First purposely; not to be resorted to hastily, but only as a last option. Guns are not just a means to go hunting, or to protect our homes from intruders. This Amendment was written as a very important insurance policy. If our government becomes much like that which we rebelled against in 1776, or worse, what is left to ensure that it will respect our votes or petitions? Even Mao Tse Tung recognized this in his Chinese revolution when he was quoted as saying “Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.” Government is held responsible by the ballot, but if necessary, by the bullet. So far, for the last 240 years the ballot has worked, but what happens when the government takes from our hands, that which has made the government respect us?
The definition of “assault weapons” is so purposely vague that it would include any self-loading rifle, including .22 caliber target/squirrel plunkers. President Obama showed what he really had in mind when, in 2008 he mentioned, with disdain, those people in western Pennsylvania, with their “guns and religion.” Hillary intends to carry on his legacy. What will then happen to our insurance policy?
This is not a call for anything less than to be loyal citizens and supporters for our Constitutional rights, to live in peace, and for a government to protect those rights, as it has always been tasked to do. The question remains, what happens when they purposely pave the way for a centralized, socialistic government that no longer rules on behalf of and for the benefit of the people?