The Gun Debate and the Hypocrisy Of Our Democracy

Posted on December 18, 2012 by jsmashmouth

The Gun Debate and the Hypocrisy Of Our Democracy.

Filed under: About the Candidates |

« »

2 Responses

  1. John Lewis Mealer, on December 18, 2012 at 10:55 pm said:

    Gun control is Anti-Constitutional as the Second Amendment SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The PROBLEM we have today is that the government has violated our second amendment rights already and have forced the teachers in the CT school (for example) to work unarmed with children they alone are responsible for.

    Whenever the Second Amendment is “infringed” upon, we lose all other rights.

    2nd amendment and the situation that it clearly spells out as it affects EVERY American (even Alec Baldwin!):

    When the 2nd is infringed, the gov’t also kills the 4th (search and seizure and it matters not whether you have a gun or a joint or secret diary), the 5th as due process for that search and theft of your personal property, the 5th when they consider the finding of article against their laws to be self-incrimination, 7th and 8th by removing your common law right to sue the offending people who passed and enforced the pretend laws AND the excessive fine, cruel unusual punishment for this even being allowed when the 2nd distinctly states “shall not be infringed”… and the 9th because as natural born Americans we are granted the right to contract or not. Meaning we are not bound by the 14th amendment to give up our rights and accept the statutory laws which negate the Bill of Rights.

    MEALER 2016

    No politician or “ever-before-elected-official” can do what must be done to fix this nation. “America Shrugged Mealer Initiative 2016” is the book to read for the solutions!

    The government caused this entire scenario. There was no evil beyond the fact that the government violated their duty to protect the rights of their constituents and had enforced and threatened to enforce laws that crushed people’s ability to defend themselves and the people (small and innocent children in this recent CT school case).

    More police power, threats, intimidation and Anti-Constitutional statutes will only cause more pain and more death to the hands of loonies and it will be against the unarmed.

    Note: In the 15th century, people were slaughtered daily with broadswords, axes and burned alive for being witches…
    Violence has actually calmed down quite a bit since then.

    Reply
  2. Mr TambourineMan, on January 3, 2013 at 12:59 am said:

    The full text of the 2nd Amendment is: “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.” so the framers did consider gun regulation when they wrote the Constitution.

    We have all sorts of “arms” regulation. It’s a lot more difficult to legally own a fully automatic weapon, explosives, or what are known as “destructive devices” which are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. In general, people don’t try to change these regulations (on more powerful weapons)

    I agree with your description of the 2nd Amendment being written to protect citizens from the government turning on the citizens. The regular firearms usage: hunting, target shooting, and protecting oneself against non-government criminals doesn’t seem to included in the 2nd Amendment.

    What I find weird about the standard 2nd Amendment arguments, especially those concerning the original intent of protecting against a pre Revolutionary War situation of government troops being more powerful than its citizens is: that is still the case.

    Now, I don’t think there is much chance of martial law or some other government take over worry (look at all the democratic governments with most/all citizens having no guns). But, even if that situation did happen in the US, and all the armed service members went along with it, we would be screwed. How is the average citizen and a few of their neighbors going to hold off tanks, fighter jets, smart bombs, drones, etc. The fire power currently given to the government far exceeds that available to the average citizen. The US has the worlds largest military budget, by far.

    I think a more interesting argument, in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment is repealing laws limiting access to more powerful weapons. Why not have a fully loaded tank in your driveway if military takeover is what is feared? I do think this is a crazy idea and don’t want to see tanks parked in my neighbors driveway, but I think this idea is just as strange as all the people getting worked up about 10 round clips vs 30 round clips, or about what constitutes an assault weapon, who should own them, and what level of paperwork and background checks are needed. Just try applying for a federal firearms license and see how many hoops you need to jump through.

    Reply

Leave a comment