Monday, May 07, 2007

Re: "Ban Assault Rifles"

A regular poster on Keep and Bear Arms who goes by the handle "Phat Chantz" sent me a reply to one of the articles posted. The article appeared on 5/07/2007 at CourierPostOnline (New Jersey) and was by JACQUELIN AGOSTINI. Enjoy the commentary that "Phat" usually makes, so asked his permission to share it;

I'm batting just about 1000. Here's another letter that I submitted to the Courier Post Online in response to a letter that KABA.COM listed on its links today. Ban Assault Rifles takes the pedantic and old saw that since today's arms weren't available at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, that assualt and all other terrible weapons we use today should be prohibited.

So I'll just share it with you. I hope the audience-of-one enjoys it.


Don't get me wrong. I can certainly understand why this wasn't printed: it is the truth and the Courier Post Online counts itself as past of my cowardly enemy.

The Founding Fathers wanted to assure that any man could obtain and bear the most lethal and terrible weapons of the time. Only in this way could mere citizens assure that their government always feared the real power in a Representative Republic -- the people.

Many casual readers of the Constitution and its amendments read their own biases into the interpretation. It serves the interested student to read the correspondence of the time as well as the Federalist Papers, written publicly as an ongoing discussion of issues such as the power of the federal and the rights of the individual.

Most importantly, the Second Amendment enumerates the RIGHT (to keep and bear arms) and not the OBJECT of the right (which arms, how many arms, kept where, how). It was just as common at the time that the cannon used in a battle
would be privately owned as held by the Continental Army. Using such logic, by extension I should be able to own my own Bradley or Howitzer; or even an old F-14.

The right to keep and bear arms pre-existed the Country, the Constitution, and the Second Amendment. This is the most important thing that the Second Amendment codifies: that government is not the author of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It, therefore, cannot be the gatekeeper to decide who is granted that right and who is denied. Neither is the federal or state government the author of the right to self-expression, faith, or private property.

But only one right guarantees that the federal government should reconsider any violation of the others, and that is the right to keep and bear arms that are so deadly, so terrible, that even a standing army would be loathe to fight the mere citizen.

The current battle over the right to keep and bear arms seems mired in the trivial disagreement of whether a citizen should be able to keep and bear arms in defense of his personal property, his life, or the lives of his loved ones should a petty criminal or felon descend and attack. If interpreted correctly according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers, this question pales into insignificance if it can be understood that I already have the right to keep and bear a Howitzer in defense against my government. If I can bear a cannon, I can certainly conceal and bear a lowly .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun.

Today's cowardly citizen desperately wants to dismiss the burden and obligation to bear that arm in defense of his life, his property, his family, and his nation. Whether cowardly or not, the burden exists and will be tried. If the coward chooses to be disarmed for the coming fight, he shall lose his possessions, his family, his nation, and most certainly his life.

Should the citizen patriot choose to bear that burden, as well as the obligation to keep and bear arms in defense of himself, his possessions, his family, and his nation, he may yet lose his life. But where enough patriots rise in their own defense and in defense of their neighbors, the family and the nation will stand.

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms is a litmus test of honor, courage, and patriotism. Those who cower behind the vain hope of peace shall see chains, at the very least. Those who are prepared to stand against the petty criminal, the petty tyrant, or any such world-wide threat to peace and independence (anyone know of one, off-hand?) will be the only hope of peace and the only authors of tomorrow's independent nation.

Shall we legislate against the right to keep and bear arms or even the "common sense" ownership of assault weapons and such ugly things? If so, we shall telegraph our cowardice and fear to the whole world.

And the whole world is watching -- and waiting for the next chance to turn us to their slaves.

Don't think that I can add anything to that one. Good job, "Phat"! If you want to contact "Phat Chantz" you can do so here.



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home