I suppose if we must agree to disagree, then I need to point out a few things.
If we will recall our history, the Constitution of the United States bears 10 Amendments, and each Amendment containing a specific direction. Also, to understand these Amendments one must look at the discussions presented by the men putting these issues on the table, their motives, their concerns, and their beliefs.
Case in point is Thomas Jefferson who wrote that if a government failed to protect its citizens and instead became their enemy, they had the right to overthrow it! So one reason that citizens wanted to bear arms was not just for defense against external enemies, but to have protection from their own government!
Noah Webster, an American lexicographer and English spelling reformer (oops!), believed an armed public would deter a government from becoming corrupt.
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”
Unfortunately, in today’s world, with the Military Industrial Complex lurking in pockets around the globe and here in the U.S., the average citizen is out gunned and out manned by its own government’s army. Look at Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian group – both instances were cases where the government took up arms against U.S. citizens. Both were dress rehearsals that went very wrong, and they caused a tremendous outrage by the informed public. The first was on the QT. The second, under Janet Reno’s direction, was with the news media there, but albeit held at bay. The video was distorted by the heat waves off the Texas prairie, but the truth is that we as informed U.S. citizens saw how corrupt our government and military had become.
I believe the 2nd Amendment’s purpose not only refers to the state’s need for security, but also toan individual’s self-defense. This has precedent in English common law and colonial history, which refers to a number of state constitutions and court decisions that define the right of individuals to bear arms.
The founding fathers understood that an individual must be armed to defend property and life. After all, if a man’s property and life were under fire, it would take the militia days to arrive, and would render their original intent to protect null and void. The founding fathers understood the nature of evil, and could not envision a people without some form of protection against pillaging Indians, thieves, etc. Today’s police force is no longer there to protect and defend, but to enforce the law. The speed to which they respond to emergency calls is often dismal.
We had a neighbor who was an alcoholic and abusive. He had actually threatened physical violence. It was discovered that while away on vacation he had broken into our home and done some damage to the house and belongings. The police advised my Father to buy a gun and teach family members how to use it in case the neighbor should attempt to enter the house uninvited. My Father did just that and purchased a Walther PPK .380. He then told the neighbor he was to leave the family alone. My Father made neither threat nor accusation. He simply told the man to back off. There were never any problems after that. But the gun was there, loaded, and ready if needed. End of problem.
I believe we have a right to be secure in our homes, and many people believe that part of that security is the right to own a gun and teach the family how to use a gun. One of the first rules my Father taught us was never pick up a gun unless you intend to use it.
Many argue that guns kill. I agree that guns are a lethal weapon, and there are certainly many people with evil intent who probably should never be allowed to own guns. But these people who know or suspect that a man is armed also know the armed man is dangerous. That marauding individual will look for easier prey rather than take on a man who is willing to defend himself with a lethal weapon.
Finally, when a government begins a move against private ownership of guns, that is when the citizens need to firmly say ‘no’ to any such recommendation. Banning guns, in my understanding, screams anti-freedom and a move toward a totalitarian, oppressive, despotic, tyrannical form of government.
My question would be this: Would I want to live in a police state where all our freedoms will be dictated by thugs who want to enslave us under the auspices of making everyone safer? This is exactly what the One World banksters are attempting to bring into being. Their only enemy will be the Military Industrial Complex, which wants all that control for themselves. Now, that is just what we need – 10 global junta governments. Why 10? With population control, 10 nations globally under stratocracy is the ideal way to control a world of sheeple.
Personally, I do not relish the thought. If flight does not avail itself, I would prefer to stand and fight – even if it means being out manned and certainly out gunned! They won’t let me, an outspoken Christian crank, survive anyway. In my mind: If I cannot get out of harm’s way, then better a dead Christian crank than a slave sheeple any day!
Christ did not call James and John ‘sons of thunder’ for nuttin’! And right now the world could use a couple of thunder blusters.
So. That’s my opinion, and I’m sticking to it. y’all keep up the good work, conversation, and banter. Nothing like a good card game and a brawling good discussion. Especially when the brawlers are intelligent, good-looking, smile a lot, and are willing to agree to disagree. We would of course need to check all the pistols at the bar. Ha. . .!
Much Love and Many Graces!
Like this:
Like Loading...
