The terrible violence in Arizona last weekend prompted much national discussion on many issues. All Americans are united in their sympathies for the victims and their families. All wonder what could motivate such a horrible act. However, some have attempted to use this tragedy to discredit philosophical adversaries or score political points. This sort of opportunism is simply despicable.
We are fortunate to live in a society where violence is universally denounced. Not one public official or commentator has attempted to justify this reprehensible act, yet the newspapers, internet, and airwaves are full of people trying to claim it was somehow motivated by someone else's political rhetoric. Most disturbing are the calls to use government power to censor certain forms of speech, and even outlaw certain types of criticism of public officials. This was the completely apolitical act of a violent and disturbed man. How sad that the attempted murder of the Congresswoman who had just read the First Amendment on the House floor would be used in efforts to chill free speech! Perhaps some would feel safer if the Alien and Sedition Acts were reinstated.
Also troubling are the renewed calls for stricter gun control laws, and for government to "do something" to somehow prevent similar incidents in the future. This always seems to be the knee jerk reaction to any crime committed with a gun. Nonsensical proposals to outlaw guns around federal officials and install bulletproof barriers in the congressional gallery only reinforce the growing perception that politicians view their own lives as far more important than the lives of ordinary citizens. Politicians and a complicit media have conditioned many citizens to view government as our protector, leading to more demands for government action whenever tragedies occur. But this impulse is at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individualism, and it also leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty.
Remember – liberty only has meaning if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and more government security is demanded. Government cannot make us safe by mandating security any more than it can make us prosperous by decreeing an end to poverty.
We need to reaffirm the core American value of individual responsibility. Consider the young man who had the courage to tackle the shooter and prevent further carnage because he himself had a concealed weapon. Without that gun, he could have been yet another sitting duck. When peaceful citizens are armed, they at least have a chance against armed criminals.
Advocates of gun control would urge us to leave our safety to law enforcement, but eyewitness reports indicate it took police as much as 20 minutes to arrive on the scene that day! Since police cannot be everywhere all of the time, a large part of our personal safety depends on our ability to defend ourselves.
Our constitutional right to bear arms does not create a society without risks of violent crime, and neither would the strictest gun control laws. Guns and violence are a fact of life. The question is whether it is preferable to be defenseless while waiting for the police, or to have the option to arm yourself. We certainly know criminals prefer the former.
Source
We are fortunate to live in a society where violence is universally denounced. Not one public official or commentator has attempted to justify this reprehensible act, yet the newspapers, internet, and airwaves are full of people trying to claim it was somehow motivated by someone else's political rhetoric. Most disturbing are the calls to use government power to censor certain forms of speech, and even outlaw certain types of criticism of public officials. This was the completely apolitical act of a violent and disturbed man. How sad that the attempted murder of the Congresswoman who had just read the First Amendment on the House floor would be used in efforts to chill free speech! Perhaps some would feel safer if the Alien and Sedition Acts were reinstated.
Also troubling are the renewed calls for stricter gun control laws, and for government to "do something" to somehow prevent similar incidents in the future. This always seems to be the knee jerk reaction to any crime committed with a gun. Nonsensical proposals to outlaw guns around federal officials and install bulletproof barriers in the congressional gallery only reinforce the growing perception that politicians view their own lives as far more important than the lives of ordinary citizens. Politicians and a complicit media have conditioned many citizens to view government as our protector, leading to more demands for government action whenever tragedies occur. But this impulse is at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individualism, and it also leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty.
Remember – liberty only has meaning if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and more government security is demanded. Government cannot make us safe by mandating security any more than it can make us prosperous by decreeing an end to poverty.
We need to reaffirm the core American value of individual responsibility. Consider the young man who had the courage to tackle the shooter and prevent further carnage because he himself had a concealed weapon. Without that gun, he could have been yet another sitting duck. When peaceful citizens are armed, they at least have a chance against armed criminals.
Advocates of gun control would urge us to leave our safety to law enforcement, but eyewitness reports indicate it took police as much as 20 minutes to arrive on the scene that day! Since police cannot be everywhere all of the time, a large part of our personal safety depends on our ability to defend ourselves.
Our constitutional right to bear arms does not create a society without risks of violent crime, and neither would the strictest gun control laws. Guns and violence are a fact of life. The question is whether it is preferable to be defenseless while waiting for the police, or to have the option to arm yourself. We certainly know criminals prefer the former.
Source
Be very clear. The second amendment was put in place to provide (and guarantee forever) the right of the citizens to be able to resist an overbearing and authoritative federal government. The fact that we can also use those same weapons in personal defense is a secondary benefit and a welcome one. That criminals use them too, is well, unfortunate. But evn the father of that little girl killed in Tucson said he would prefer the right to have guns than the alternative. The police CANNOT stop the burglar or rapist. They merely investigate and report the crimes, which is then used to justify MORE police, but they will NEVER "protect" us. Gun "control", or the recent and popular "gun safety" crap, is the attempt by the government and liberal gasbags who think its dangerous for kids to climb a tree to disarm us. Keep trying, you sissies. It ain't happening in THIS country. Move to London, please.
ReplyDeleteI agree whole heartedly with this article. I for one have never robbed anyone, nor shot at or shot any living organism in my entire lifetime. But I do believe with the way the economy is plummeting coinciding with the upward trend of violence, especially in our area is getting ou of control. I for one believe it should be easier to carry a concealed weapon for those who go through the legal process of registering it. We have already seen that criminals will use these guns whether they are given permission or not, so when is it time to say enough is enough and allow those same citizens who are having their houses broken into, being robbed, and even being shot to have a fighters chance at least. If you are not allowed to carry a gun around with you how are you supposed to stand up to the guy waiting on the street corner who decided to bring his weapon with him tonight so he can rob you? I dont know about you all but I am tired of waking up and reading stories about another murder whose victim was someone miding their own business and someone else decided to butt in.
ReplyDeleteWhy hasn't anyone said how much better things in Tuscon would have been if everyone there had a gun?
ReplyDelete12:29....because thats obvious and doesn't need to be said. If everyone in that crowd was armed or POSSIBLY armed, you think that guy would have got off more than a couple of shots? Its the people who KNOW there is little chance of resistance (criminals) because our "leaders" have disregarded and and disrespected our rights by severely limiting who can carry weapons, and what weapons we are "allowed" to have, that are committing the crimes. Not the millions of law abiding people just like me who have arsenalsm but have never shot, robbed, or assaulted anyone. I'm just not lettin'it HAPPEN to me or my family.
ReplyDeleteInclaim....although i agree with you most of the time I definitely disagree wth your statement "The second amendment was put in place to provide (and guarantee forever) the right of the citizens to be able to resist an overbearing and authoritative federal government."
ReplyDeleteNO SIR! Our rights, including the 2nd amendment right, were endowed upon us by our creator. The 2nd amendment right serves as the teeth that will ensure that all other freedoms are preserved. This includes protection against an overbearing government. The bill of rights is nothing more than a moderate and very limited list that recognizes a few of those inalienable rights.
A few of the founders didn't even want to list the rights found in the bill of rights for fear that they would later be interpreted as man made and limited to only those listed. There fears have been realized. While we should do whatever necessary to return to our constitutional republic, and while we should most certainly restore our constitution as the law of the land, we mustn't lose touch with the fact that men did not grant freedom to the American Citizens. God did. And then he gave us the will and the strength to fight for it so that we would appreciate it. Let's not allow a man made government to take something from us that God gave us. Further, let's not give a manmade government credit for giving us something it didn't have the authority to give.
there are areas of our country that require it's citizens to own a gun and either keep it in their home or carry it on their person.
ReplyDeletethe crime rate in these areas are virtually nil/nada/zip.
what else do we need to understand about this fact/statement?