HOME_____BLOG _____BOOKS_____RADIO_____CLASSES_____VIDEO_____PUBLIC SPEAKER

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Disarming Innocent People Does Not Protect Innocent People

By Douglas V. Gibbs

One of the first things Hitler did once he came to power was to require that all firearms be registered. Once the firearms were registered, that meant the government knew where all the guns were, and then the Nazis proceeded to confiscate all of the weapons. This was nothing new. History shows that whenever a tyrannical system takes over a country, it accompanies the disarming of the general public.

The Second Amendment in the United States was written precisely so that the government would fear the people. Keeping the public armed was deemed by the Founding Fathers to be "necessary to the security of a free State." The States were secure against foreign enemies by the American military, but who would protect the States from that military should a despot gain control of the federal government? That is why the Second Amendment, which is directly pointed at the federal government, says that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." That means that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in any way, shape, or form by the federal government. That means no federal restrictions, no federal registration requirements, and no federal bans on any kind of firearm. If any laws regarding guns are necessary, that is something that can be administered at the State level. Each State is different, so the needs regarding regulations over guns would vary from State to State.

I have always found it interesting that people like Obama supports the ban of assault weapons, yet it is those very kind of firearms that are used to protect his own family.

The United Nations is currently working on some treaties that are designed to compromise an individual's right to own guns. On August 27 the negotiations regarding a small arms treaty will be in motion, a treaty of which the initial intent is to combat the illicit international trade of small arms by tightening the regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons (which would include assistance by the United States to arm - for their protection - States like Israel and Taiwan).  As with any leftist move, however, a deeper control of small arms within the sovereign borders of treaty participants is in the works as well. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has indicated that she will push for this treaty to be ratified by the U.S. Senate once President Obama signs it. Since, according to Article VI. of the U.S. Constitution, treaties are also the supreme law of the land, this treaty in a legal sense, will supersede the 2nd Amendment. Do not be fooled. Once these treaties are in place, as they did in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, the authorities will begin rounding up and confiscating legally acquired and legally owned guns in the United States.

After confiscation the only people with guns will be law enforcement, government agents, the military, and the criminals which will be thrilled that now all of their targets are unarmed.

In Germany the confiscation of firearms by the Nazis did not protect the citizens from tyranny. The action enabled the tyranny to gain full control. The same was true in the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Cambodia under Pol-Pot.

By disarming the citizenry political leaders guarantees virtually no opposition to their tyrannical deeds.

Unfortunately, gun violence does exist, but it is not the guns that cause that violence, but the people behind the firearms. In Britain and Australia, after enacting strict gun control measures, the occurrences of violent crime shot up. The criminal element no longer feared that their victims might be armed.

Evil people, criminals, gang members, members of drug cartels, and so on and so forth are not people interested in laws or in keeping existing laws. They ignore them as if they do not exist. So how would a gun ban alter their behavior, or keep them from gaining access to a firearm?

By restricting guns in the hands of law abiding citizens we will welcome more crime, and the rise of a tyrannical governmental system. Our woes when it comes to shootings, like the recent one in Aurora, Colorado, are not the fault of inanimate objects.  In fact, if that theater had not been a gun-free zone, and one of the patrons with a concealed-carry permit was packing, the gunman would have been stopped immediately, and lives would have been saved. In other words, the strict gun laws in that area enabled a higher death count.

On average, murder rates in States banning concealed-carry are higher than in States having the most liberal carry laws.

The lessons of history are clear. Disarming the population leads to the rise of a governmental system intent on enslaving the populace. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to obedience to the government, no matter how tyrannical it becomes.

Disarmament does not equal peace and safety - it actually facilitates the exact opposite.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

2 comments:

Yellow Flag said...

First of all Snopes says you are a fucking idiot liar. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

Second, you said that ratified treaties become the law of the land, but not according to the courts:

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement, not a "treaty" in the U.S. legal sense, and the agreement itself has never been ruled unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

piece of shit moron. They ought to silence your fucking piece of shit liars blog.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

I don't normally approve Yellow Flag's comments because of the language used, and the ridiculous things he/she says. However, this one is interesting. Aside from calling for censoring my blog because I dare to have an opinion different from his, he also has decided that a single court ruling overturns what the Constitution says. Now, I have to take the good with the bad, and I agree it would be nice if only "constitutional" treaties were valid. But that is not what Article VI says. It says that the Constitution, laws of the United States, "and" treaties are the supreme law of the land. It does not designate, as it does with laws made by the federal government, that the treaties must be pursuant of the Constitution. The founders weren't worried about treaties going outside the Constitution because the States are the final arbiters of the Constitution, and at the time the States had a voice in the federal government through the U.S. Senate, which is also the house of Congress that was needed to ratify said treaties. The 17th Amendment changed that. So, the danger we are in with treaties that threaten to supersede the Constitution is primarily a threat because out system of government, the very dynamics of our government, are outside the Constitution in the first place.