Greetings PSF readers,
I’ve been jolted awake from my writing coma by the recent slaughter in Parkland High School. I am disgusted, frustrated, angered and grieved by this disaster. The insensitive comments on social media mocking the cries and pleas of parents and students of Parkland begging for a ban on guns make me angry enough to spit fire. For just ONE minute put on the shoes of a student or parent living this nightmare! Imagine the terror and listen to the cries! When you lay your head down on your pillow give a thought about the sleepless nights of those who lost their most precious treasures and those who lived to tell about what they witnessed. I understand and support the zeal to defend the 2nd Amendment. But I also understand and support the fierce passion of those who want the madness to end.
Yes, prominent conservatives are being maligned, taunted and criticized (nothing new) for standing up and speaking up in defense of the constitution; the only document that secures our freedoms and incites to anger those hell-bent on destroying it. Conservatives need to show unfettered compassion in light of this horror without regard to the contempt and jeering voices of Progressives. And just like a genuine apology, genuine compassion is never followed by a “but.”
I am not fanatical about guns but I am fanatical about freedom. In a perfect world there would be no need for guns, but don’t confuse that with the notion that removing them will make the world perfect. I am not an admirer of those intentionally intimidating high capacity rifles but I would certainly be eternally grateful if one was used to save my life or the lives of anyone within my life circle.
After reading this NY Post article written by retired military officer, Ralph Peters, I am compelled to weigh in. With all due respect to Mr. Peters’ service and commitment to protect our freedoms, but for the sake of my sanity I can’t let his arguments go unchallenged. I understand that his experience and knowledge with guns far exceed mine. And I share in the sadness and frustration that Mr. Peters is expressing about the horror of these crimes. I agree that without access to these types of guns it would be much more difficult for a deranged individual to kill a great number of people in one assault (unless the sick individual used a vehicle or bomb). Mr. Peters’ arguments seem reasonable and he presents them in a logical format but they are propped up by emotion. There is nothing wrong with bringing passion into a debate of the issues but that isn’t enough to win the argument.
“But I believe, on moral, practical and constitutional grounds, that no private citizen should own an automatic weapon or a semi-automatic weapon that can easily be modified for automatic effects.”
I believe on moral, practical and constitutional grounds that no private US citizen should be required to pay income tax. From a moral perspective it is theft. From a practical perspective it limits opportunities and choices (education, homeownership, independence). From a constitutional perspective it is a violation of the 5th Amendment. Many will argue that none of my points are valid but I can say assuredly that my claim is better supported by the constitution than Mr. Peters’ assertion. Failure to pay the 16th Amendment’s compulsory income tax will certainly result in seizure of property without due process.
“These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting. But they’re excellent tools for mass murder.”
I wholeheartedly agree. Actually the inherent purpose of any gun is to kill. But what Mr. Peters doesn’t seem to understand is that there are law-abiding citizens who have these weapons in the event they may legitimately need to defend themselves against those that would come to take their lives or liberty. If a gang of individuals were to launch an attack intending to destroy the person, family or property of an automatic-rifle-owning law-abiding citizen it is fair to reason that he would be wise to use his gun for the purpose of killing human beings. What if that well-armed gang of individuals was made up of government authorities? Don’t think that’s likely? Read about the state of affairs in Watertown after the devastation visited upon that city by the incredibly evil Tsarnaev brothers. How about the TERROR that rained down in the middle of the night on the good folks in Wisconsin not so long ago?
“The standard argument deployed in reply to demands that military-grade weapons be banned or mildly restricted from public sale cites the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Well, here’s what the Second Amendment actually says:
‘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.’
That ‘well regulated militia’ part always gets left out. It’s called the ‘National Guard’ and ‘the Reserves.’ ”
I had no idea that the ragtag band of farmers, preachers, blacksmiths, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers was considered a Revolutionary War National Guard. Those men who came out of their fields and shops and pulpits and picked up arms to defend themselves from the tyranny of the maniac from across the pond didn’t gather because they were well regulated, but because they were well motivated. The National Guard soldiers take their marching orders from government authority. They aren’t coming to your home to hold off a mob of armed ninjas (Antifa) or rabid MS 13 thugs. The right of the people to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed may be the second part of that amendment but that doesn’t mean it’s secondary.
Does any serious-minded, morally centered reader believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other geniuses of freedom intended that a disturbed young man or a disgruntled employee or just a vicious drunk should be guaranteed the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder?
Based on the nature of fallen humans we can be sure that there were disturbed, disgruntled, and vicious drunks living among Washington, Franklin, Adams and Jefferson. What are the chances those undesirables owned many guns? I don’t know with certainty that the arms of those folks weren’t confiscated but I’m guessing they weren’t, particularly because of the weighty words of the newly crafted 2nd Amendment. I don’t know anyone, in my sphere of influence, who wants to see nuts intent on murdering people for sport or for reasons other than self-preservation with a personal arsenal or even baseball bat. The hot spot here is that liberals on social media, print media, talk shows and national news networks proclaim Christians and conservatives are emotionally disturbed on a daily basis. They don’t believe we should even be allowed to have baseball bats.
As for putting weapons in school that’s a punk idea. More innocents would die.
It would be helpful if this were more than mere speculation. I’m not saying that he is wrong but without some data from somewhere to support this it shouldn’t be said with certainty. And it inarguably can’t be proven. May is a better choice of sentiment than would.
Again, I support gun ownership. Always have, always will. But if anyone feels irresistibly compelled to fire automatic weapons or their surrogates, I have a deal for them: Join the US Army or the Marines as a combat infantryman. You’ll even get paid to pull triggers.
I understand and appreciate Mr. Peters’ concern but his support of gun ownership is based on the guns he believes are acceptable. But there are millions of people who don’t agree with Mr. Peters’ list of acceptable guns. What happens then? Mr. Peters wants specific guns banned. Even if law-abiding gun owners were willing to comply, law-breaking gun owners wouldn’t and that’s a problem. As a self-proclaimed defender of the constitution and advocate of gun ownership Mr. Peters must know that gun confiscation will not sit well with 300 million Americans.
I will echo the truth spoken by many. We don’t have a gun problem. We have a sin problem.