I take issue with the Jan. 17 editorial “The NRA’s true colors,” which supported the president’s 23 executive orders framed, ostensibly, to make our citizens safer. The Globe claims that the bans and limitations prescribed by these orders are all “sensible measures that do little to disrupt any law-abiding person who wishes to buy a gun for hunting, collecting, target practice, or self-protection.” The editorial ignores the foremost intent of the Second Amendment: for the citizens to protect themselves from tyranny in government.
I do not own a gun, but I am part owner of the US Constitution, and will not stand by and watch the president negate my rights for fraudulent reasons and speculative results. There is no evidence that banning guns equates to a safer environment. Take away all the guns, and the deranged among us would opt for alternative and more destructive weapons with which to vent their anger.
Comments
Will someone please tell me where this notion that the second amendment was designed to allow me to protect myself from a tyrannical government comes from? That idea is complete nonsense. There is nothing in the Constitution that even implies such an idea, and even in its wildest interpretation you could not arrive at that conclusion.
You need to read the framer's letters explaining the BOR in the years after they were written.
Fly, since you asked:
"
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."
"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
So maybe you should start doing some research instead of wishing it was interpreted the way you would like. Hmmm?
By your own reasoning, Donald, any gunless citizens with a sudden need to violently protect themselves from tyranny in government should be able to "opt for alternative and more destructive weapons", so you should be all set.
I believe the folks who think they may have to someday do that would prefer not to have to start from scratch. But they would no doubt avail themselves of those alternative weapons.
If your reasoning is that armed citizens will be able to overcome a tyrannical government you best move to a country where the government doesn't have a highly organized Army, Navy and Air Force armed with helicopter gunships, artillery, cruise missiles, tanks and drones.
Your comment implies that the Armed Forces of this country would bear arms against the citizens. If you think that soldiers are robots, you are sadly mistaken. Military men take an oath that includes obeying lawful orders and defending the constitution. They know the difference between lawful orders and illegal orders. That point aside, anyone fighting to maintain our constitutional form of government does not have to win, only endure.
It is called Jury Duty and the Vote.
DestinationPittsburgh is right - one untrained fool against the armed forces is suicide. Which brings me to draw your attention the article in yesterday's paper about the number of suicides that would have been prevented had a gun not been so readily at hand.
One untrained fool? You really think there is only one person in this country who supports the 2A and would be willing to fight if it were voided? Nah, you really don't. See my response to Dest below about not having to win against the military and the foolishness of presuming the military would kill civilians.
Suicides. There is a place where some serious work needs to be done. Especially among young people. My thought is that if you have people under the age of about 25 in your home, and you have guns, those guns should be locked up VERY securely, combination lock known only to you. Adult suicide is a different matter, not so sure what to do about that? I understand that quite often a gun is just too quick and if it had not been available, an intervention is often possible.
As someone who owns 4 guns, I do not have a problem which most of the regulations being proposed. Requirements such as keeping guns, unloaded, secured with trigger locks, inside a locked gun cabinet make my family much safer. When my son is older, I will teach him about how to use guns safely. Until then, I have no problem keeping them secured and have no interest in having a gun that can hold more than 5 rounds. Unfortunately, there have been few studies about gun ownership and gun violence in the US because the NRA has been able to prohibit federal money from being used to collect such data and has actually gone so far as to promote legislation prohibiting the collection of such data. That leaves one looking at countries with high gun ownership, such as Switzerland and Afghanistan as examples. Guess which country has higher level of regulation and fewer instances of gun violence between the two. Finally, has the author actually spent time talking to gun owners? If he had, he should have been able to figure that most gun owners are responsible citizens who understand that the right to bear arms comes with great responsibilities. It is the vociferous 2nd amendment "defenders" that ignore the responsibilty part of the equation.
Wrong. I am a vociferous 2A defender, I do not ignore my responsibilities.
Your statement that the NRA has prohibited "legislation" to collect data relative to gun ownership and gun violence is misleading. The "legislations" you refer to were not simple studies, but rather laws that would require gun owners to register guns. Gun violence data is already collected. Obviously, you are not very well informed because you do not know how to access the FBI uniform crime reports available on the internet.
Over the last 20 years the Center for Disease Centrol has done studies on motor vehicle accidents, drug use, bullying, suicide prevention, etc., but no studies no gun violence. That should be a good starting point, but unfortunately the current appropriation language prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from using its funds to advocate or promote gun control. Any study that could provide data which could be used by gun control advocates would violate that restriction. This is not gun control legislation. This is simply the collection of data that we need to make our country safer for our children.
Fortunately, there are many gun owners who believe that the every one else's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is just as important as our right to keep and bear arms.