Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Alphecca: Wolves in Sheeps’ Clothing

Alphecca: Wolves in Sheeps’ Clothing

HT: Michael Bane Blog

Alphecca has a nice(?) summary of the Democratic Primary Candidate responses to questions about 2nd Amendment issues..

Essentially, they're willing to pay lip service to the second amendment, but in the final analysis they have no ... NO! ... comprehension of what it's all about.

They're willing to make lip music about 2nd Amendment rights, but at best it's couched in terms of hunting rights.

Has nobody ever expressed to them that the Second Amendment is not about the Right to Hunt?

Those of you who visit here are probably .. oh, I'm going to guess 90% competition shooters. You may be 50% competition shooters, but I expect that is the low-end of the range. It would be easy to typify you as people who shoot semi-automatic pistols in USPSA competition, perhaps even semi-automatic rifles (and some Practical Shotgun) in Multigun competition. It's impossible to even guess your primary concerns vis-a-vis firearms usage.

And it's also misleading to do so.

Chances are, people who shoot competitively against cardboard/steel targets also have other interests. I expect many of you have Concealed Carry licenses, whether you carry daily or not. You probably shoot in other competitive disciplines, such as Trap, Skeet, IDPA, IROC, etc.

But those are most likely your secondary interests, and to argue that 'exotic' firearms (such as an STI Grand Master) are worth protecting because they have a legitimate 'competitive' use is to beg the question.

The facts are, there are a tempting number of reasoned arguments which may be used to justify possession of any kind of 'exotic' firearm, but there is only one justification for owning any single weapon:

It is a God-given right to own weapons, and man's attempt to restrict or regulate this ownership is a denigration of our rights.

Maybe it's not that easy.

Sure, somewhere there's a line between 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' weapons. I'm thinking crew-served weapons, and I'm not certain that even this raw minimal definition is any better than an arbitrary measure which is not supportable by the Second Amendment. Is a 155MM Howitzer a legitimate weapon for personal ownership? How about an 80MM Mortar ... at least it's man-portable, and it would be an excellent weapon for a Militia force. Isn't that the measure of the 2nd Amendment?

This is obviously a question which is ripe with gray areas, and if we look at the actual text of the 2nd Amendment as a test, it requires a stretch of the imagination to define:

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.
If we define 'arms' as any firearm, and we define 'keep and bear arms' as meaning that the cited arms must be man-portable, it may be that you are justified in owning any arms which you can 'bear', which is to say 'carry'. Thus, a mortar may be a legitimate arm while a 105MM howitzer may not be a legitimate arm.

On the other hand, if I were engaged in 'militia' operations, a 105mm howitzer may be a handy tool.

I only offer this example to illustrate that the question is not a simple conundrum.

The answers are not easy to come by. In point of fact, the questions are not easy to define.

All I know is that the politicians have neither the questions, nor the answers. And if we depend upon them to defend our God-given rights, we're in deep doo-doo.

The only answers that Politician have is to enact laws. When is the last time you saw a law which acknowledged your rights?

When is the last time you saw a law which deprived you of your rights?

Right, what I thought.

Put not your faith in the politician, my son. They're a bunch of self-serving liars. All of them. Think of your favorite politician, and imagine that he/she is a liar.

You've got the picture now.

No comments: