Ninth Stage pointed this odious opinion piece by a self-described attorney and activist who believes that we will all be safer if we have no means to defend ourselves.
The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore. The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a “well-regulated militia.” At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists.There are so many errors in these few paragraphs that I am sickened. I am tired and I do not make money by advertising my career on my blog so I'm not going to spend two or three hours fisking this. I hope someone who is really good at fisking gets hold of it.
Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist goups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States’ armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt.
The more important consideration is public safety. It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns. Gun violence is increasingly widespread in the United States. According to the DOJ/FBI’s Crime In The United States: 2003 report, 45,197 people in the United States were murdered with guns between 1999 and 2003. That averages out to more than 9,000 people murdered per year. Nearly three times the number of lives lost in the tragic 9/11 attacks are murdered annually as a direct result of guns.
However...
You must have overlooked that part about "the people."
The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco is not an example of anyone rising up against the military. It is an example of some people trying to mind their own business who were viciously attacked and attempted to defend themselves.
No one is ever murdered as a direct result of guns. They are murdered as a direct result of other people who want to kill them.
And mostly, I have some information for you: rights cannot be repealed. Try saying that to yourself a couple of hundred times, because it needs to sink in.
Amendments can be repealed. Other parts of the Constitution that protect essential rights can be repealed. The rights themselves cannot. They can be repressed. The people who try to exercise those rights can be oppressed. The rights still remain, and will always remain.
The writer of this piece has a blog, turned up by a simple search. In the most recent post, which is several months old, he says this:
I see more and more fearful Americans willing to trade liberty for security. Americans seem to be willing to allow torture if it means making us safer. Americans are willing to deny others rights we have long held sacred.That choking sound you hear is just me. I have trouble breathing when the irony is this thick.
Let's follow his illogic to its logical conclusion: The First Amendment must be repealed.
Islamists believe that everyone should be either Moslem, or dead. Therefore freedom of (or from) religion is obsolete.
Freedom of speech can't be allowed because someone might say something to offend an Islamist and make them want to kill us even worse.
The press might print something that insults/inflames/annoys the Islamists (see above). Therefore freedom of the press must end.
The right of people to peaceably assemble must be stopped. People peaceably assembling makes it easier for Islamists to kill many people at once. We become terrorist-enablers, therefore such assembly must not be allowed.
Mr. Afeef should carefully examine himself on this matter. He may realize that someday, the only thing that stands between him and one of those infamous white supremacists (the example he is so fond of using) is just some nameless guy with a gun under his shirt and the will to protect the defenseless.
Even when such protection is not entirely deserved.
