Sunday, November 9, 2008

Reader Writes About Second Amendment

A friend and avid reader writes to disagree with my recent post, "Obama Threatens Our Constitutional Rights." Let's jump right into his note, with my responses per paragraph. I've left you alone for the majority of the last few months, as I know it must've been pretty hard on you, seeing the numerous republican defeats. However, I do want to just raise a few quick questions involving your seeming belief that Obama will single handedly remove your right to bear arms and eventually invade Poland. First off.... I never said that President Obama will "single handedly remove" our right to bear arms. To do it legally, there are two basis approaches he could take. First, he could push a move to amend the constitution to either completely abolish the Second Amendment or modify it. Second, he could, with the cooperation of both houses of Congress, go for federal legislation that would further impinge upon the rights granted under the Second Amendment. In any case, I don't believe a president could do this alone unless he was a despot who declared martial law, and even then he would need a lot of colonels, generals and admirals siding with him. In other words, a coup. A despotic president is one of the reasons why the Founders wrote the Second Amendment. (As for your confusing reference to an invasion of Poland, I'm not sure what you are referring to. You may want to redirect that question to Vladimir Putin of Russia. The last time I checked, the United States helped to free Poland from the old Soviet Union and is currently providing them with defensive weaponry as a response, in part, to the recent Russian aggression toward Georgia.) "Amendment II -- 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." Under this reading, it seems to me that you're ignoring the first half of the amendment. Are you saying that the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with a formally organized system to defend our 'free state'? No, I am not saying that "the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with a formally organized system." However, I would not say that the Second Amendment limits us to a formally organized system, either. While I acknowledge the part about a "well regulated militia," I also see the part that says "the right of the people...." Neither part negates or modifies the other. I do commend you, however, for parsing the words of the amendment. That is exactly how laws should be analyzed. The final part of the amendment, "shall not be infringed," seems fairly unambiguous. It reinforces the first two parts. Now, which part of "right of the people to keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed" seems unclear? As well, why are you worried about whether the Obamanatics are going to take away your right to own a measly firearm when our own army is practicing securing towns in our own country for the purpose of imposing martial law? Wow, and people call me paranoid! If you have proof that "our own army" (I assume you mean "military," and not just the army) is getting ready for martial law, please share it with all of us. That's been rumor for decades now. Do I believe that the US military and/or National Guard units train for urban warfare, like we saw in Los Angeles during the "Rodney King Riots?" Sure. So do big city police departments. Frankly, I like knowing that they're ready for violent unrest. But if your question is a reference to President Bush and the Leftist paranoia about him imposing martial law (which has not happened 77 days before Obama is to be sworn in), then I suggest you take your question to George Noory on Coast to Coast AM. Will your .357 really be useful against APC's and battle hardened troops? I don't own a .357, but if I did I guarantee that it would stop one of Joe Moore's goons as they try to come through my window at 3:00 a.m. Here's a little history: The battle hardened troops of the old Soviet Union were held at bay many times by Afghani fighters with greatly inferior weaponry. I'm not going to give you a whole history lesson here, but you must know that there are hundreds of examples in history in which well armed, well supplied, battle hardened units were held off or even defeated by opposing forces with fewer soldiers, inferior weaponry, and poor supplies. So, hypothetically, yes, a few hundred ordinary citizens armed with .357s or .22s could hold off such a force for a while. And mind you, this is not being organized by your beloved democrats. Any reason why I haven't heard anything from you on this topic? Could it be that the 'powers that be' are already moving us towards that old 'New World Order' that we've all seemingly forgotten about? Maybe the last 28 years has really been just an intentional weakening of the USA to make it easier for us to be absorbed by the great amoeba of World Government? Or am I just paranoid? You and I agree, mostly, on this point. There are both Republicans and Democrats who are quietly working for the dissolution of the United States. The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), for example. NAFTA, for example. You are not being paranoid in thinking that the US has mortal enemies who would like to divide us, conquer us, and absorb us into The Great Amoeba. For those of you who laugh at such a notion, remember this: The US has, over many decades, spied on other nations. Other nations have spied on us. If it is so easy for some of you to believe that the US is bent on world domination, why is it so difficult to believe that China or Russia could not be similarly inclined? Take that a bit further, to a cooperative effort of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, who would love nothing more than to see the US fall and be split apart. But we digress here: Let's get back to the Second Amendment. One last thought, though.... if you're against gun control in our country, how do you feel about Iran's nuclear program? Any reason why you should be able to own a gun for your own 'defense' and they can't have one for theirs? It's a ridiculous leap to go from gun control to a nuclear program, but I'll play with that. I am not entirely against "gun control." I don't believe that people with felony convictions or certain forms of mental illness, for example, should be allowed to own guns. I have no problem with background checks (nor does the National Rifle Association). However, a person who has not been diagnosed with mental illness and has no criminal convictions should be allowed to own a weapon (a rifle, a handgun, no missile launchers). Iran, under its current leadership, is comparable to a person who has been diagnosed with mental illness. The UN even agrees, and has placed sanctions on Iran. Do we, the world community, let the mentally ill Iran have not just any weapon, but nuclear weapons? I don't believe anybody objects to Iran having a strong conventional defense capability. It's the nuclear part that's worrisome. Let me repeat, however, that I think the comparison of Iran's goal of nuclear weaponry to the desire of a little old lady in a bad neighborhood wanting a pistol in her nightstand is absurd. These questions aside, I hope you're doing alright, and congrats for escaping the People's Republic of Rogers Park.

your avid reader,


Those questions aside, I hope you are well, too my friend. Please keep writing; it's always good to get your comments. I have indeed escaped the People's Democratic Republic of Rogers Park. However, I am now behind the velvet curtain of the People's Democratic Republic of Evanston. The only difference here is that the locals are more hypocritical about their ideology. And much better dressed, with nicer cars. And better restaurants, cleaner beaches, nicer theaters......