Firearms Friday: We Need A Reminder

The past week has been an interesting one to say the least with regard to the protection of our rights. Following the defeat of four gun control measures proposed in the Senate as a knee jerk reaction to the mass murder that took place in Orlando, many democrats decided to stage a sit in. Leading this act of defiance was Congressman John Lewis (D-GA) who, if anything, did a great disservice to his own noble legacy. He was a leader in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s fighting for the equal rights of all Americans regardless of the color of their skin and now he is fighting equally hard to strip law abiding Americans, of all races, of their rights.

He would do well to heed the advice of Thomas Jefferson who wrote in an early draft of the Virginia Constitution in 1776 that “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Thankfully, this brief, misguided, and ineffectual action came to an end just as fast as it formed. However, that hasn’t stopped many politicians from continuing the debate and calling for the formation of an asinine utopia. A prime example can be found in the musings of Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) who feels that members of congress need and deserve armed protection but that law abiding citizens should not be allowed to possess a firearm.   

Unfortunately, there are many in this country that have bought into this falsehood that only certain people should be able to possess firearms namely the military and law enforcement. Of course, those same people are filling our streets with manufactured outrage whenever a member of law enforcement is involved in a shooting. These are the same people that troll the internet and leave comments along the lines of “the founding fathers never intended for the second amendment to apply to modern firearms… they couldn’t have anticipated “high capacity magazines” and assault rifles [they really mean semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15]… they only had muskets.”

Well, that is one stinky pile that they have stepped in. The simple fact is that the founding fathers were well informed as to what the present had to offer and what the future might entail. To this point, many people have responded to the aforementioned types of comments referencing the Puckle gun as one of the developments of the time. However, while the revolver like mechanism speaks to the innovation of the time, it doesn’t combat the tainted perspectives on display. For that you actually have to look further back in history to the Kalthoff repeater which saw action with the Royal Foot Guards of Denmark in the Siege of Copenhagen (1658-59) and the Scanian War. While not prevalent, the magazine fed (up to 30 rounds) firearm had a rate of fire unmatched until the mid-nineteenth century. This firearm was a legend by the time the founding fathers drafted the Constitution and it is certain that they were aware of the technology.

Others politician in this current environment, like Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA), look to try and please both sides by introducing legislation that would do nothing more than muddy the waters and create a system as flawed as the individuals running it. All that it would cost us is a little bit of our freedom. Well, as Benjamin Franklin wrote in the Historical Review of Pennsylvania in 1759, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I’m not giving up my rights for the false sense of security that would be gained by the weak minded. Additionally, those who introduce such measures are walking a very dangerous line especially in Pennsylvania where it is written in our constitution (Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21) that “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.” 

Sometimes we just need to remind people of these facts rather than allowing the propaganda to flow, unmolested, throughout the media. Right now, we face a serious crisis. It is not about what we own it is about the mentality of the people. It is about the the willingness to overlook the acts and intentions of the individual in order to assign blame to an inanimate object. It is about the willingness of some to give up essential freedoms for the empty promises of security. And, most importantly, it is about the paralyzing plague in this county that is mental illness and our unwillingness to do something about that problem. That is really what has to change.

The Truth Behind The Sarcasm

We are all familiar with sarcasm and most of us understand how to use it. However, there are some people that when faced with certain circumstances that demonstrate true mastery of this form of speech. Recently, I came across an article and video of one such master.

In light of recent gun control legislation being considered in a local resident of Ashland, Oregon who identified himself as ‘Johnny Bolton’ attended stated meeting of the Ashland City Council’s on February 4^th. In the beginning, it wasn’t entirely clear what the resident’s objectives were in his statement to the council but soon it was quite obvious what his true intentions were in introducing a new public safety concern group: Citizens for a Really Safe Ashland.

The presentation was made in response to proposed legislation concocted by the local organization Citizens for a Safe Ashland which would further infringe upon the rights of gun owners. It went on to answer the simple question which has been previously addressed in this blog: Why stop there when there are so many other things we can regulate to ensure public safety? He starts his speech in the following manner:

“Representing well over 30 resident citizens, and given the current vogue for citizen introduced reasonable and common sense ordinances, ‘Citizens for a REALLY safe Ashland’ want to capitalize on the desire to act in a “timely manner” (or even in a knee-jerk expedited manner) to introduce a comprehensive public safety ordinance that – whilst perhaps not actually addressing any genuine or legitimate issues – does serve to promote a divisive partisan agenda!”

Thankfully, he also points out our caveman-like place in the civilized world just like a true American like Piers Morgan would by stating, “European countries are light years ahead, indeed a recent study by the esteemed British Medical Journal proposes banning all kitchen knives over 4” long – because the people would be safer.”

At this point, the full color of the citizen’s sarcasm began to shine through to the point that your name would have to be Sheldon Cooper to not understand the message that was being eloquently presented. Specifically, the Citizens for a Really Safe Ashland, proposes the following ordinance:

1.  Regulate the public visibility of, and

2.  Seek to punish those that allow minors access to, the following potentially dangerous, often unfamiliar, and in some instances outright scary items:

(i) Knives
(ii) Chainsaws
(iii) Power-tools
(iv) Hammers
(v) Ladders
(vi) Bath tubs

(vii) Swimming Pools
(viii) Car keys
(ix) Alcohol
(x) Prescription and non prescription medication

See, common sense safety. It should be known that Ashland is a hotbed from criminal activity where children frequently play with keys, swim in swimming pools, and take baths regularly (many times forced into this vicious cycle of addiction to cleanliness by their own parents). It is for this reason that this proposed ordinance is so important. Also it should also be seriously considered by the Ashland City Council because…  

“That this proposed ordinance will be ineffective, and a solution to a problem that does not exist is not of great importance.  What matters is making a statement about “community values”….We can’t ever be too safe, can we.  It’s for the sake of the children, and we – and they – have to be protected from ourselves.”

Unfortunately, even with such sarcasm, one of the final points made during Johnny Bolton’s presentation held some truly scary truth. While seen as a humorous over exaggeration by some, when you really look at what is going on in this country there is a little too much truth to the following statement: “Evidently concepts such as absolute inalienable rights, liberty, and personal responsibility are old-fashioned, outmoded, and frankly quite scary!”

Take some time to think about what is really being presented in the video below and consider all that has been proposed in this country (both on the local and federal level). This is not just with regard to the overabundance of gun legislation that has wasted countless taxpayer dollars but the elimination of trans fats, the socialization of medicine, and numerous other initiative that have been forced upon us in the spirit of “we know what is best for you.”

 

Irony And Hypocrisy: Besties 4 Ever

Over the past few years we have seen a sharp increase in the number of protests and rallies throughout the country. While most have come in the form of large groups of people getting together to show their support or disdain for one topic or another. Personally, I haven’t been a part of these gatherings but fully support the reasons behind some of these assemblies. Others, I am simple left wondering if they really give a crap or fully understand what they are saying and what their actions say about their point of view.

A prime example of the questionable practices of some of these groups occurred this past Saturday in Raleigh, North Carolina when a group of individuals decided to hold a rally in opposition to the ‘Republican Agenda’ in the state. One of many points of contention was the passage into law this past year that a photo identification is required for someone to vote in person. I know, such a radical law. How do you expect the dead to vote if they have to actually show up at the polling place with a photo ID.

This is not the first time that such opposition has been seen. In fact, this is a constant topic of debate across the country. What was interesting in this instance was that there was a certain requirement in place at this rally in order for people to be part of the heard protesting this voting requirement. Enter irony and hypocrisy skipping into the conversation hand in hand (they are besties at this point).

As was reported by the Associated Press, “Rep. David Lewis, R-Harnett, said Saturday the NAACP was being hypocritical for directing marchers on a document to bring photo identification when it opposes a photo ID requirement for voting. Lewis helped shepherd a voter ID law through the legislature.” Yes, you read that correctly, a photo ID was required to protest the voter ID law. Interestingly enough, actually not really interesting more common practice at this point, this little tidbit wasn’t mentioned by any of the more left leaning publications beyond the AP.

Maybe it would make sense to simply have ‘Moral Marches’ on election day and everyone would be happy except, of course, for those who wouldn’t be able to participate in either. I wonder who they would protest against. Would they bother getting a photo ID in order to protest the fact that they didn’t have a photo ID? Why don’t those people without photo identification simply hold up signs at a presidential rally? Oh wait, those require a photo ID to get into as well.

In an age when identity theft is rampant it only makes sense to require people to have photo identification when they go to vote. We are not voting for the next American Idol, we are voting for the people who are supposed to represent us from school boards and other local elected officials to congressman, senators, and the president. Requiring photo identification ensures that you vote for who you want to represent you. One person, one photo ID, one vote. This is the basic equation that everyone, regardless of party, should stand behind.