On the gun grabbers

Facebook comments so good I couldn’t let them go to waste there. They were in response to this post by Martin O’Malley:

Progress is a choice. So long as gun violence continues to take the lives of our fellow Marylanders, there are choices we must make together to protect our children, our families and law enforcement personnel who put themselves in harm’s way every day. Today, we’re putting forward a comprehensive set of public safety initiatives that will improve the safety at our schools, make meaningful mental health reforms, and enact common-sense gun safety measures like banning military-style assault weapons and limiting high-capacity magazines. We’re also proposing the largest investment in Maryland’s police forces in 20 years and calling for a renewal of our DNA law that has taken 510 murders, rapists, & other violent criminals off MD’s streets.

Naturally I had to reply:

“Progress is a choice.” Yes, we can progress towards liberty or regress back to tyranny. Our governor rarely makes the right choice in that regard.

As for the comment above about 50 to 60 rounds: frankly it’s none of your damn concern how many rounds a magazine has. No one has ever complained they had too much ammunition to do the job and if my home were ever invaded by a multiple-person group I sure don’t want to be limited to 10 rounds at a time.

Safety in schools isn’t something which can be provided by the waving of a magic wand or more laws rendered meaningless by the fact criminals, by definition, ignore them. It requires a sea change in attitude and a respect towards life missing from a society which promotes abortion as a matter of convenience and a culture which doesn’t teach the lesson that violence depicted on film isn’t the same as in the real world, where actions have consequences.

And if that wasn’t good enough, someone dared to question my understanding of the Constitution:

Among those of us who “spout off the Constitution” there are many who understand the situation we had lately endured when it was written: we had spent close to a decade and the lives of many fine men and women to throw off the yoke of tyranny expressed by the British Crown. Needless to say, the men who wrote the document wanted to insure that no such fate awaited their progeny, so they wrote the Second Amendment to protect the remainder of the Bill of Rights.

For example, when taken at its word, the Third Amendment (“No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law”) doesn’t seem to have application in the modern day. But in the context of the time and the overall purpose of the document, which was to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” it makes more sense because soldiers of the Crown were known for this practice.

The Second Amendment, at its core, is certainly not about hunting and wasn’t superseded by the creation of the National Guard. It’s about the people who wish to protect themselves from a tyrannical government and expressed an inalienable right.

Perhaps you should learn more about the Constitution before you tell those of us who understand the intent about spouting it.

And to the original point: all that would be done by banning so-called “assault weapons” would be to make otherwise law-abiding citizens either criminals or sitting ducks for those who don’t care about following laws – or, for that matter, the value of human life.

But I wasn’t through yet.

And I’m glad to see Americans get my point. A Rasmussen Poll out today states the answer to the question:

“The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides Americans with the right to own a gun. Is the purpose of the Second Amendment to ensure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny?”

“The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17% disagree, while another 18% are not sure.”

I guess the 17% are all on this thread. Glad most Americans still get it.

Of course, I can say all I want but at the present time too many in the Maryland General Assembly have the mistaken notion that the Second Amendment is antiquated and was only meant for a time when muskets were the rule. Or gun grabbers consider it a “public health issue,” which couldn’t be farther from the truth. (On the opposite hand, most of them believe murdering an unborn child is a matter of “choice.”) They even bill themselves as supporting “smart” gun laws:

The Governor’s anti-gun violence package will reduce gun violence, make our communities safer, and become the standard for smart gun legislation in this country. Smart Gun Laws Maryland will be working to see that the legislation is not watered down by the General Assembly and is enacted into law. We will be mobilizing thousands of Maryland citizens to engage in the political process, contact their legislators, and send an unequivocal message of support for the Governor’s proposal. Now is the time for strong gun legislation nationally and in the state of Maryland.

Many of the members of their steering committee are veteran gun-grabbers and liberal advocates: Lisa Miller Delity, a board member of CeaseFire Maryland; Vincent DeMarco, who is taking time out from trying to ram Obamacare and an increased tobacco tax down our throats to assist in this effort; Matt Fenton. the former president of Marylanders Against Handgun Abuse, which evolved into CeaseFire Maryland; Eric Gally, a gun-grabbing lobbyist; Gary Gillespie, who heads the Central Maryland Ecumenical Council; Rachel Howard of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins University; Michael Pretl, a local environmental advocate and attorney who must be tired of trying to usurp our property rights; and the Rev. Donald A. Sterling, a Baltimore pastor.

I don’t know what their problem is, since Maryland already gets a “B” grade on restrictive gun laws, as did Connecticut – but they ranked 4th out of 50. Yet still Sandy Hook occurred.

But as a response to this group and O’Malley’s efforts, we who believe in the Second Amendment obviously need to mobilize thousands of Maryland citizens ourselves; people who understand the clear intent of the Founding Fathers and won’t be cowed by media shills and others who would accuse of being butchers – while they callously exploit the murder of 20 children and six adults by a criminal for political gain at the expense of law-abiding citizens like 99.9% or more of gun owners are.

A good start in fighting back will be a rally in Annapolis tomorrow that my blogging friend Jackie Wellfonder is planning to attend – surely she’ll have a rundown, as will others. There will also be a need to testify against any and all bills in the O’Malley legislative package, which can be followed on the General Assembly’s newly revamped website. Those of us who are activists should become closely familiar with that site.

Some say they have enough votes to pass this bill, and it’s indeed possible they could. But don’t forget there could also be the opportunity to petition them to referendum should they pass, and as last resorts we have the courts and the fact all 188 state legislators are up for election next year.

We can win this fight. Don’t let the siren song of a small minority of public opinion fool you into giving up your liberty.

5 thoughts on “On the gun grabbers”

  1. I love that you mentioned me, you should link me too 😉

    Looking forward to the rally tomorrow, I hope we see the crowd that has responded they’ll be there via Facebook! Should be a fantastic event!

  2. I’ll be there too.

    Few elected officials want to discuss the actual intent of the 2nd Amendment; that is to provide citizens the means to defend the Constitution with weapons comparable to the government’s equipment. 10 round magazines vs 30 round military ones doesn’t seem to fit the intent. Also, if arguing about the unintended consequences of gun control, we can look at the US history. Native Americans and African Americans were subject to gun control in the past and look what government and citizens supported by government did to those citizens. Based on this history, Native Americans and African Americans should be fighting gun control tooth and nail.

    While an armed citizenry is no guarantee that a tyrannical government will not development, it certainly could give said leadership pause. The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment and the remainder of the Constitution.

    As to those who would say that modern weapons are not recognized by the Constitution, the SCOTUS recognized in the Heller decision that just as television journalism is protected by the 1st Amendment, while only print journalism was known by the Founders, so are modern weapons protected by the 2nd.

    The death of democratic societies historically had a final stage before tyranny developed and bondage ensued; it was apathy. Our country has exceed the average lifetime of 200 years for such a form of government and I would hope all citizens would want our rights and freedoms to continue. But as was seen in Germany, the people may not have the courage to stand up for what is right. As Pastor Martin Niemoller wrote:
    “In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

  3. Somewhere along the line I have written how each amendment of the Bill of Rights leads to and complements the others, but here is a simplified version:

    • The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and redress of grievances – something a tyrannical British Crown interfered with in all cases, with the most deadly being the Boston Massacre. Obviously religious persecution was also an influence in their thinking.
    • The Second Amendment protected the first by allowing the people to serve as a check on their government through force of arms.
    • The Third Amendment prohibited armed agents of the government from entering the private domain of the home without permission, which extended the protection of the Second Amendment.
    • The Fourth Amendment extended that Third Amendment protection of the domicile to one’s effects, prohibiting their usage without justifiable cause.
    • The Fifth Amendment protected citizens from unreasonable search and seizure, self-imcrimination, or losing their property without compensation, completing a triumvirate of articles designed to safeguard liberty and private property.
    • The Sixth Amendment guaranteed a legal system that served to protect the accused and guarantee him a speedy trial with judgement by his peers, with the protection afforded by the Fifth Amendment.
    • The Seventh Amendment extended the right to a trial by jury to civil law.
    • The Eighth Amendment completed the four steps required to set up a fitting legal system by prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.
    • The Ninth Amendment forced the government to concede rights not enumerated to the people, insuring that future generations would enjoy the same amount of liberty established in the Bill of Rights.
    • The Tenth Amendment established that states could choose to enumerate their own rights, but the people were paramount.

    Of course, there were those who argued the Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the fact government already had enumerated powers meant those restrictions were somewhat redundant. In defense of those who argued for their inclusion, it seems to me the extra rules of the road were needed and as I recall some colonies based their eventual acceptance of the Constitution on the fact they were included.

Comments are closed.