"To Disarm The People - That Was The Best And Most Effectual Way To Enslave Them"
Some things have simply not changed. Those regimes seeking to assert and maintain absolute control over the citizenry will always try to disarm them first by means of confiscation, regulation, taxation, and through controlling markets for firearms and ammunition. Without exception, an unarmed citizenry is one that can be effectively bullied and coerced and are readily controlled by the government.
By comparison, a well armed citizenry is an ominous threat to any police or military force who would seek to exert control over them. It is for this reason that our founding fathers introduced the Second Amendment into the U.S. Constitution.
Undoubtedly many readers will challenge the logic of the Second Amendment and will assert that the rationale for gun ownership that I have presented is no more than empty rhetoric. However, before you completely close your mind on this issue, consider the following:
Turkey established its gun control laws in 1911, utilizing them to arrest and exterminate some 1.5 million Armenians between 1915 and 1917.
The Soviet Union prohibited citizen gun ownership in 1929 which in turn contributed to somewhere between 20 and 62 millions citizen “dissidents” being rounded up, imprisoned and exterminated.
In 1938, the Nazi Party implemented strict gun control enabling them to collect and exterminate approximately 13 million Jews between 1939 and 1945.
After invading Poland in 1939, the Nazi forces utilized pre-war gun registration lists to both confiscate firearms and arrest their owners. Thereafter they were free to round up the Jews for the Warsaw Ghetto and ship them off to concentration camps.
Gun control laws introduced in 1956 allowed Cambodia police and military forces to arrest around 21 million professionals and intellectuals and exterminate them.
Although the U.S. Constitution was created long ago, the intelligence and foresight of our founders regarding our national sovereignty and self-defense remains impressive.
There are many quotes from the founders which could be cited to illustrate their rationale for including the Second Amendment in the Constitution. However some of the following quotations are particularly indicative of their thinking at the time.
For instance, Thomas Jefferson, after observing during the drafting of the Virginia Constitution that "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms” (1776) later asserted in correspondence to John Cartwright (1824) that “"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
James Madison, though best remembered for asserting in 1792 that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country,” also observed that (1788) “The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms ... Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.”
Likewise, Patriot Richard Henry Lee - renowned for calling for the independence of the colonies during the Second Continental Congress - is also remembered for warning that (1788) " to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Finally, our first United States President George Washington made the timeless observation (1790) that "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
Our founder's words are clear, distinct and unequivocal. It doesn’t take a Harvard trained attorney to interpret their plain-language as they blatantly asserted that the people not only “should” maintain personal arms, the absolutely “must” maintain arms in the interest of remaining free.
Nevertheless, those on the left continue their seemingly endless campaign to disarm Americans. The most recent, and alarming, piece of legislation intended to achieve this end is H.R. 45 – the Blair-Holt Act - sponsored by Illinois Democrat congressman Bobby Rush.
Fortunately, this bill is in committee and thankfully has not attracted co-sponsors to date. However, H.R. 45 will likely enjoy Obama's endorsement since it is essentially identical to H.R. 2666 introduced in 2007 and co-sponsored by 15 other representatives including Barack Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel. Given Emmanuel's support for such legislation and Obama's strident anti-gun legislative record, we can reasonably expect his endorsement if the bill attracts additional sponsors and moves out of committee.
H.R. 45 mandates that all handguns and semi-automatic weapons either purchased directly or transferred must be entered into a national firearm registry and that all firearm purchases must be made through federally licensed gun dealers. Furthermore, all citizens will be required to report to the federal government all of the firearms within their possession and will not be allowed to sell or dispose of these firearms without going through a licensed gun dealer and recording all transfers to the federal government.
There is also another piece of legislation under committee scrutiny that bears monitoring, and that is The Gun Show Background Check Act of 2009 (S.843) sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). This bill would require background checks at gun shows and allow the U.S. Attorney General to conduct unscheduled audits of sales and transfers at gun shows. It is this latter provision that has proven controversial since it gives the attorney general the authority to show up unannounced at gun shows with a cadre of auditors and literally halt all gun sales and transactions while they conduct audits of dealer records.
Undoubtedly the President will sign H.R. 45 bill if it is passed by the Congress. In fact, throughout the weeks and months to come we should look to see if he actively backs this bill or if its content is incorporated into another gun control bill that the administration and Ms. Pelosi endorse. Moreover, he can likewise be expected to also support Senator Lautenberg's bill if it is passed. The net effect of both bills would be to seriously curtail citizen second-amendment rights and incrementally expand federal capacity to identify the firearms owned by private citizens.
In truth, the amazing thing about those within the administration who would restrict gun sales and ownership is how disconnected they are from the constitutional foundations for second amendment rights.
I fear that this disconnection reflects two underlying values.
First, I believe that this President, his administration and his progressive partners in the Congress simply do not recognize the authority of the Constitution of the United States. Rather than relating to it as a binding legal document, they treat it as a departure point for an endless procession of federal court decisions that serve to redefine the nation’s constitution and laws to suit the whims of whoever happens to be occupying the judiciary at any given time. In other words, the progressive commitment to judicial activism easily trumps any sense of respect or deference to our nation’s principal founding document.
Secondly, I am convinced that this President and his administration envision a powerful central government that can generally impose its will on the public – whether they like it or not. We have already seen their indifference to taxpayer protests against deficit spending and a national health care system. Similarly Obama has ignored the desires of many, many other citizens who feel that we are leaving our troops in Afghanistan in harms-way because he will not send additional troops. He also has demonstrated an indifference to truth itself when he guarantees the public he won’t impose new taxes on the middle class while he pushes for a national health care plan that fails to contain health care costs while imposing a significant tax on every single citizen to pay for it. All of these actions indicate to me that Obama is hell-bent to do whatever he wants – the public be damned.
Given this authoritarian attitude, it is not hard for me to believe at all that he and his administration would absolutely love to take away the guns of the citizenry, knowing that in so doing they will become even more vulnerable to coercion.
I realize what I am saying. I am saying that for the first time in the nation’s history I believe we have a President and administration capable of imposing their will upon the citizenry by eliminating the physical capacity of the public to resist them.
Lest you think I have "flown the veritable coop" with this assertion, remember that the same type of criticism could have been made of any citizen living in the era of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot or Pilsudski who made an assertion similar to my own.
Nobody ever wants to consider that their government or its leaders may have the capacity to become dictatorial oppressors. I am certainly unhappy to have come to the conclusion that President Obama and his administration may very well be willing to become even more high-handed, oppressive and autocratic if doing so furthers their agenda.