Guns' future? Look at history

  • Follow Letters

History is a marvelous thing. Though the particulars and circumstances change, it still can unerringly predict the future. This is because the actions of people, especially people in or grasping for power, do not change.

There has been great discussion that more gun control will not happen. History tells us it will, and it will be poorly written, unevenly enforced and full of unintended consequences. The history of gun control in America is one of reactions to crises – the National Firearms Act of 1934 to organized crime; in 1968 to the Kennedy assassinations; and the Brady Bill to the 1981 Reagan assassination attempt. This administration’s governing motto is not to let a crisis go to waste.

Some believe the Constitution will prevent the gun ban. Good luck; the 2010 Supreme Court decision upholding the Second Amendment was 5-4. Experts say there will be one or two justice appointments this term. Given the strident ideologues President Obama put on the court in his first term, by the time the next gun case reaches the Supreme Court, it’ll be pro-gun control 7-3.

Besides, how many amendments of the Bill of Rights still stand? One through Eight are pretty much gone. Freedom of speech, double jeopardy, searches, speedy trial, eminent domain – none of those exist anymore except in civics books. (I suspect, to cut the military budget, Obama has looked into quartering troops in private homes.)

There also is a belief in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 – that the military would not obey the order to enforce a gun ban. Really? George Washington put under arms an army larger and better-armed than any he commanded in the Revolution to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. What about Gen. “Bug-out Doug” MacArthur machine-gunning the veterans of the World War I Bonus Army? And to those relying on the cops to disobey: Just who do you think went around confiscating guns to keep the rioters and looters from harm in Los Angeles and after Hurricane Katrina?

A word of warning: Military estimates place the number of combatants in Afghanistan and Iraq at less than 2 percent of the population, yet they’re pinning down the best military forces in the world – a bunch of 10th-century-technology peasants with some iron scraps, Semtex and C-4. I cannot imagine the consequence of pitting our armed forces against a determined, educated and equipped population infuriated by a sense of betrayal.

Dave Stewart Sr.

Grovetown

(The writer is a retired U.S. Army first sergeant.)

Comments (41) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
burninater
8651
Points
burninater 01/12/13 - 05:53 pm
0
3
Come on now Harley, how many

Come on now Harley, how many times do I have to say I'm not refuting the individual right to bear arms for you to finally hear it? I have two posts in this string. In both of them I assert the individual right.

My repeated point, and I'll say it AGAIN, because it seems that repeating something in all caps on two separate occasions isn't clear enough: use of arms in violent opposition to the Constitutional government is defined, by the Constitution, as a crime. That was my clearly stated response to Darby's claim to the contrary. That was the point of both of my posts. Neither post refutes the individual right to bear arms.

I wouldn't need to beat a dead horse if the explicit contents of my posts were not repeatedly misrepresented by another poster.

burninater
8651
Points
burninater 01/12/13 - 06:02 pm
0
3
Here's a different way to

Here's a different way to consider the absurd idea that the 2nd Amendment exists to allow for the overthrow of the government.

As treason is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, murder is explicitly forbidden by God. As the Constitution provides a mechanism by which citizens can commit the treason of violent resistance to the Constitutional authority, God endows Man with the freedom of action and the physical means to commit murder.

The Constitution no more was designed to encourage treason than Man was designed to encourage murder. Endowment of the means to behave criminally is not the sanctioning of criminality.

harley_52
21730
Points
harley_52 01/12/13 - 06:03 pm
2
0
When A Government....

...repeatedly and maliciously ignores the Constitution is can no longer be viewed as a "Constitutional Government."

Those individuals who are using their perfectly Constitutional weapons have an obligation to support the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

OpenCurtain
10049
Points
OpenCurtain 01/12/13 - 09:11 pm
2
0
The writer and others are dead on

Like using a Sledgehammer to hit a nail dead on.

About 4 years ago Oath Keepers were started and people laugh at them and called them fools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers

Many of those that were laughing quit long ago.

OpenCurtain
10049
Points
OpenCurtain 01/12/13 - 09:15 pm
3
0
BTW: what do the Oath keeper stand for?

The Oath Keepers feel that their sworn oath to the American Constitution, grants them not only the right, but the duty to refuse unconstitutional orders.

BTW: All DOD / Military personnel are currently sworn to up hold the American Constitution, NOT the President or Congress.

Darby
22996
Points
Darby 01/12/13 - 09:30 pm
2
0
"Darby, I didn't finish the quote because....

....it would be absurdly ridiculous to think that you or anyone debating this point didn't know the rest of it, don't you think?"

A classic example of absurdly ridiculus would be your idea that we need authorization to defend ourselves against tyranny.

No, you didn't finish the quote because you were attempting to parse and "spin" the words of the founders. If one is to analse a word, phrase or even an entire written tome, then he is obligated to consider it in its complete form.

Didn't work. Never does when people think they are entitled to their own facts, no matter what the actual truth.

Darby
22996
Points
Darby 01/12/13 - 09:32 pm
4
0
BTW, I got that thirty round magazine online for...

$29.95 including shipping. That's less than a dollar a round. Good deal if I do say so. Don't you agree Burninator?

dichotomy
29759
Points
dichotomy 01/12/13 - 10:46 pm
2
0
While it's true that

While it's true that revolution would technically constitute treason, folks need to remember that the Constitution was our second document. The first was the Declaration of Independence.

Now, when you have a president that doesn't follow the Constitution and would use executive power to circumvent the Bill of Rights, and a Senate that has not discharged it's responsibilities in 4 years, I believe that would constiture an oppressive government.

So yes, our founders would consider fighting a government that was functioning according to the Constitution as treason, they certainly had no reservations against revolting against an oppressive government....even ours.

'But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,"

Now "absolute Despotism" is a subjective term and if Obama keeps using unintended executive power to circumvent the Constitution and the laws on the books then I think we are pretty close to being there.

OpenCurtain
10049
Points
OpenCurtain 01/12/13 - 10:47 pm
2
0
What document starts with

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands ......

Why was it written?

Then there is that other document?
Where there is a clause That REQUIRES the president take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?

Gage Creed
15290
Points
Gage Creed 01/12/13 - 11:10 pm
2
0
Darby quoted this earlier but

Darby quoted this earlier but I believe it bears repeating...."THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

harley_52
21730
Points
harley_52 01/12/13 - 11:17 pm
1
0
"While it's true that revolution would technicall constitute....

....While it's true that revolution would technically constitute treason, folks need to remember that the Constitution was our second document."

The use of the word "treason" in this discussion is a red herring. Any government that wants to persecute/oppress/exterminate a group of its citizens has to somehow justify it for the sake of appearances. They can't admit to the world that they're involved in a genocide....they've got to blame it on something that seems pretty awful. Everybody understands that "treason" is pretty awful.

My earlier post highlighted some of the genocides in the 20th century that killed at least 56 million people. We can all rest assured that the dictators who were responsible for these atrocities justified them on the basis that those being killed were guilty of some crime against their countries. If anyone needs a more contemporary example they can do a little reading on what's happening in Syria.

Brad Owens
4094
Points
Brad Owens 01/12/13 - 11:19 pm
0
1
Bizkit...ignorance is the main cause....

You cannot spread Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) form one person to another. AIDS is developed when a Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infected person's immune system is weakened from HIV to the point it cannot fight off illness, which is what you are talking about. The virus, HIV is what you meant right?

You are right about one thing however, HIV is being spread at very high rates, but not among just homosexuals. The fact that it is no longer a death sentence due to the antiretroviral drugs available and so a lot of caution has been thrown out too.

I worked with a security company that provided armed escorts to the drugs being shipped form Kenya to Mozambique for a company that imported the antiretroviral drugs into Southern Africa. President George W. Bush put that program into place and it has saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives.

Anyway, just wanted to shed some light on that and get you using the correct nomenclature (I get mad when anti-gun folks talk about 300 bullet "clips" and such)

Brad

Back to Top

Loading...