Republican Gun Ownership Views
For years, liberals across America have been fighting to increase regulations on gun ownership for American citizens. Their ultimate goal is to try to completely remove guns from the populace. Their reasons for wanting to increase these regulations are justifiable although misguided. It is the premise of these liberals that removing guns and installing tighter regulations will keep firearms out of the hands of the people who would commit crimes with them. This is both true and false to a point.
If you could somehow completely eliminate guns from the face of the earth, it would very likely have the desired effect. Everyone knows that this is an impossible goal. Even just increasing regulations on guns may very well reduce the number of ridiculous rampages where a former employee or postal worker goes ballistic on his former coworkers. It might. There is no proof that it would. You can only use common logic to say that it would make it slightly more difficult for that nutcase to obtain a gun. It may also reduce the number of accidents you have where a young person accidentally shoots his brother because they were playing with dad’s guns. Again, there is no proof that this would be the case, only a hypothesis.
What we do know will happen as a result of excessive gun control.
1) Only the police and hard core criminals will own guns.
2) Law abiding citizens will be less able to protect themselves from violent crime
3) A criminal with a gun will be unstoppable until confronted by police
4) Criminals will seek guns even more so than they do now because of their increased power
5) An illegal gun trade will develop and flourish just like the drug trade
6) Criminals will acquire guns from neighboring countries just like the drug trade
7) Citizens will have no means to overthrow a dictator like politician who seizes power in our country. How would we fight back against a modern day Nazi government?
8) There will be less of a deterrent for every kind of violent crime.
9) Some law abiding citizens will lose their lives to violent criminals that otherwise would have killed the criminal in self defense.
Government should not impede a law abiding citizen’s ability to defend himself, his family or his property from violent criminals.
The Second Amendment in the United States Constitution reads as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let’s take a closer look at that sentence. They say “A well regulated militia”. They use the word militia to represent individual citizens or groups of local citizens. In those times it was normal and expected that every man defends his own property and defends his own family. It was expected. They took it for granted because that is what normal people do. Normal people protect themselves, their property and their loved ones. This is basic human nature people.
Notice how they used the phrase “necessary to the security of a free state”. They are saying if people want to live in a free society, they must defend themselves. They are saying it is necessary for the security of society that people be able to defend themselves.
Then they explicitly state that people should be given the right to own and use arms necessary to protect themselves with. They use the word arms, meaning weapons. In those days people owned rifles and pistols. This is obviously what the founding fathers were referring to. They didn’t specify which arms because some person might use a sword or a club or a pitchfork. They didn’t say which arms, because they were wise not to limit the means by which a reasonable man can defend his family against unlawful aggression.
The writers of the constitution finally go on to say “shall not be infringed”. They are stating this on purpose. They are saying that government does not have the right to take the people’s arms away from them. Government cannot take away the citizens arms because those arms are necessary for the people to adequately defend themselves and maintain a secure environment.
Liberals always argue that times are different than they were when the constitution was formed. Times are different now. However, basic human rights are no different now than they were then, nor should they be. In a free society it is the god given right of every citizen to be able to defend himself, to the death if necessary, in a situation where his life, the life of a loved one or his property is unlawfully threatened. No country that calls itself a free country can take this basic right away from its citizens. The founders of this great nation agreed that this is a basic right of every citizen. We must resist the temptation to meddle with their well thought out system of government. It is in our attempts to modernize the rules set forth by our founding fathers, that we create the very unintended consequences we live with today.
The second amendment is included in the Bill of Rights because it is that important to the survival of liberty in this great republic called the United States of America. It is a basic right of every citizen. Liberty is the reason this country was formed and why so much blood has been shed since its conception. We must preserve our liberty for the sake of all who died giving it to us. Not doing so is like spitting on the grave of every American soldier who has ever fought for this nation. We must teach our children and immigrants that our Liberty is what makes us Americans. We have been charged by our fathers and they by their fathers to protect that liberty. We must protect it with our very lives.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with LIBERTY and justice for all.
So why are liberals constantly attempting to take away my right to defend my property and family? I live in a small suburb 20 miles north of Philadelphia, Pa. Our town is a small hamlet and the local state police have informed us that they are cutting back on weekend patrol hours and that we need to contact, should we need a policeman, the one cop town, the next town over. That town patrols day time only. I would prefer to call the police and will if need be BUT,…I legally own a fire-arm and will have it in hand if ever need be as we have had family discussions about mom going tot he kids rooms and calls 911 while dad remains upstairs with loaded weapon at the tops of the stairs in the event of a break in. We’ve had one and when I announced that I had a gun the house, the bad guy(s) left the house. I will say that a house alarm aided the situation and having a family plan, a house alarm and a firearm protected by the 2nd amendment gives me peace of mind in that “I” can and have the ability to protect my loved ones if need be.
I am an immigrant citizen who is first an American followed with of British heritage. Our founding fathers saw fit to give power to the American citizen to protect themselves from an oppressive government as that of King George and we as American Citizens must NEVER digress to the false impressions of a government that will protect me cradle to grave. We must be responsible for our own safety and our own actions.
God bless us All,
a patriot and voting citizen
Greg,
The liberals want you to give your property to the criminals without a fight. Then you are supposed to call the police and let the state worry about retrieving your stolen goods and punishing the criminal for what he has done.
But, as any sane and moral man would do, guys like us will defend our families and our property by any means necessary, even if the state tells us we can’t.
Glad to have more people like you move to this country. Wish you lived in my neighborhood.