NEW YORK, April 9, 2013 — In recent months, we have seen the senseless violence of an evil few turning our attention towards curbing the harm madmen inflict. The alarming violence of tragedies like Sandy Hook, bring forth the issue core to the question of natural rights and personal security, the right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment, stating that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, sits at the base of the argument. That amendment was not designed so that a citizen can hunt deer or shoot targets at a range.
The oft ignored role of the Second Amendment is that if our government were to ever become so tyrannical that the people would no longer be able to enact reform peacefully, they can take up their arms and defend their freedoms.
And what cannot be answered is that if the public were to voluntarily disarm when they do not need their weapons, when would they get those weapons back? A government despotic enough for a people to arm themselves againt is far past the point where they would give their defense arms back.
The counter argument is that needing, as a people, to take up arms to defend ourselves from the US government is unthinkable and violent crime is the issue in the crosshairs of this debate.
Violent crime is a problem. More than 10,000 people were killed in America this past year, and a gun was used in nearly 70 percent of those killings. This tells us that when violent criminals wish to inflict evil they often grab a gun.
At first glance, the issue seems clear: rid the world of guns and you rid the world of gun crime. Yet, the problem is that criminals, by the very nature of being criminals, act outside the law.
In ridding the world of guns, we still leave the violent criminals roaming the streets. That regardless of how numerous or how severe the gun laws may be, the criminals will still be there to break them.
One thing we can all agree upon, a well-armed public standing against violence is not enough. We must not only empower the Good, but we must work tirelessly to stop Evil.
To curb this violence we must start at the home, not at the Second Amendment. It is accepted that there exists no better deterrence against crime than a strong family and good parenting.
An educated populace deters crime. We must correct the unacceptable education standards in this country, and give all parents the opportunity to choose a higher performing school for their child.
We must redesign our budgetary priorities giving teachers and police officers wages worthy of their tasks. We must strengthen jail sentences for violent criminals, repeat offenders and parole violators, as these are the people most likely to inflict harm upon innocent civilians.
We must work together as citizens to create a society that respects the sovereignty of the individual and the sanctity of life, regardless of what stage that life may be in.
A gun is an inanimate object, and the danger it poses is not in the caliber of the bullet or the size of the magazine, but in the man standing behind it. Instead of focusing on getting guns off the streets, let’s go after the source of the problem, the person who picks the gun up to create mayhem.
If moral and legal restrictions against murder do not dissuade these people, what makes you think gun control will?
To think that a mass murderer will remain undeterred by the legal and moral limitations against murder, but will be stopped by gun legislation is like saying Evel Knievel would be stopped from a life threateing jump across the Grand Canyon because of a speed bump in the street.
If a killer wants to get a gun, he will, regardless of the law. The gun is being acquired to break another law, be it theft, drugs, or killing. Laws will not stop that person from picking up a gun, legal or illegal. Laws will not stop the acquisition of guns sold on black markets and out of the trucks of cars.
Leading us to the oft overlooked fact that only law-abiding citizens, will comply with gun legislation. And they are not the ones we fear.
With this in mind, when that evil breaks into your theater, or your home, do you want him to be the only one with a gun? Do you want to be unarmed and helpless in the face of his evil?
As great as the police are, they will not be there. Just as they cannot predict a crime, they will not be there to stand between you and that evil when it strikes.
Personal defense is a natural right and an individual responsibility.
Opponents cry “You don’t need an assault weapon,” but this is not about need, and even if it were, in a free society “I” decide what “I” need for my safety, and my security.
And even though I shouldn’t have to justify the existence of Rights inalienable, I will: I need that scary looking weapon because when I’m face to face with evil, and my life is on the line, I don’t want it to be a fair fight.
There is no Marquess of Queensberry Rules with a a person intent on killing.
Asking the good, honorable citizens of this country to disarm, which is the first step of gun legislation, is no different than asking England to disband their army while Hitler was on the march through Europe.
As long as we grant a select few the power over military and police, over courts and school, to write and enforce laws, that threat of tyranny will always be present. This is why above all else the insurance policy of personal security must not be infringed. The right to keep and bear arms must remain to give pause to all those who wish to infringe upon the rights of the free citizens of a just society.
We must work to create a world that promotes virtue, punishes evil, and respects the individual’s natural rights to life, liberty and property.
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.