President Trump has drawn back a bit on his support for the NRA in reaction to the recent Parkland Massacre in which 17 people (students & adults) were killed by an ex-student of the High School Nikolas Cruz. Second Amendment proponents view this as a betrayal. Justin Smith shares his feelings on the issue.
On a personal level I believe something must be done to protect soft targets (like schools, but there are many more soft targets) from terrorism and nut jobs. HOWEVER, gun confiscation or restriction is NOT the solution. I won’t delve into alternative solutions here, but I will state my largest concern about gun control that will affect in law abiding American.
Especially due to Obama weaponizing government agencies – including law enforcement and intel agencies – I have zero trust in government to not force some unwanted way of life down my throat. Gun control will lead to tyrannical totalitarianism. Justin Smith’s thoughts below should warn of future potential government tyranny that begins with gun control.
Until My Last Dying Gasp
By Justin O. Smith
Sent March 2, 2018 7:18 PM
Let me be as clear as I can be. I don't give a good damn how many Americans have died in recent shootings, when their lives are placed next to the liberty of millions of Americans, for generations to come. President Trump and Democrat and Republican senior senators, those who beamed at the prospect of exerting greater gun control during their February 28th meeting, seemed to forget that so many more lives have been saved by the right to self-defense, as they attacked the Second Amendment, due process under the law and individual liberty; and regardless of any new illegitimate and unconstitutional "law" they may implement, through coercion or "might makes right" action, they will still be wrong and spitting in the faces of the Founders and the American people.
Today's criminals are nearly always armed with semi-automatic weapons, so police are not the only ones who need AR-15s. Criminals victimize the public, and if citizens are to stand a fighting chance against criminals, they too need effective weapons.
However, America now finds itself saddled with a Trump administration, which is not so different from a Clinton administration on the Second Amendment after all. Trump endorsed the "assault weapons" ban, background checks for private sales at gun shows and raising the age for purchasing firearms to twenty-one. He also contended Congress was "petrified of the NRA", as he tore into fellow Republicans as tools of the NRA and handed Democrats a propaganda victory.
As Katie Pavlich, journalist and Fox News contributor, recently noted [Outnumbered Video], despite the AR-15s popularity, data from Homeland Security shows that handguns are the weapon of choice when it comes to mass shootings. She also stated: "And let's not forget that during the church massacre in Texas ... it was an NRA-certified instructor who used an AR-15 to stop the killing ... ".
During the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court stated that the right to self-defense pre-existed government, which had already been confirmed by U.S. v. Cruikshank in 1875 and never overturned. The court went further in Heller, and it articulated the right of the individual to use firearms, that are at the same level of sophistication as firearms one's potential adversary might have, whether that person is a criminal bad guy, psychopath or a soldier of a tyrannical government. And this must negate any attempt to ban semi-automatic rifles, even those deemed "assault weapons".
The suggestion to raise the age limit is a non sequitur argument, and once again, a punishment of law abiding Americans. Age is not indicative of good sense or good moral character. Timothy McVeigh was in his late twenties when he bombed the Murrah Federal Building and the Las Vegas shooter was sixty-four. Aside from this, guns aren't the problem any more than age can denote one's mental stability, or lack thereof.
Forty-eight years ago at the age of thirteen, I would often walk through the main streets of Dixon, Missouri, with my twelve gauge shotgun slung across one arm and on my way to the fields and backwoods trails to shoot wild hogs, and I would happily wave at the police and sheriff's deputies, as they drove by. No one thought this to be anything unusual.
Mental illness and its role in gun violence was also part of the discussion, and President Trump revealed his despotic side, when he explicitly denounced due process of the law, saying: "... take the firearms first, and then go to court ... because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court to get the due process procedures, I like taking the guns early ... take the guns first, go through due process second."
Who deems these people dangerous? the government? family? friends? It takes more than just one assertion, one allegation, and it must receive due process consideration, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Otherwise, the mere accusation of mental illness might become a subterfuge to disarm thousands of normal people, perhaps political opponents, by any future administration.
Trump's far left suggestion to grab guns without legal cause was radical, idiotic, fascistic and unconstitutional. Such a comment from any Democrat president would have resulted in armed stand-offs with the police, calls for impeachment and a fury from the American people hotter than a thousand 100 megaton nukes exploding.
Senator Ben Sasse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the only Republican to openly oppose President Trump, as he stated: "Strong leaders don't automatically agree with the last thing that was said to them. We have a Second Amendment and due process of the law for a reason. We're not ditching any Constitutional protections simply because the last person the President talked to today doesn't like them."
At what point are Trump's supporters going to hold him accountable for his outlandish statements? At what point will they stop excusing him?
God forbid that America should ever descend into real tyranny, however, Trump's remarks show precisely the reason America must not allow the Second Amendment to be eroded. Modern history is replete with examples of fascist and communist regimes that exterminated a combined total of 160 million of their own people, between 1940 and 1980 [Closest citation I could in cursory search], and, in light of our own early history under the British, it is ever more important for Americans to retain the right to possess modern semi-automatic weapons, to ensure that our government never feels it is more powerful than its citizens.
Foremost among our unalienable rights, the Framers of the Constitution recognized our right to life and to defend life -- one's self, one's family and one's property -- by ratifying the Second Amendment. They wrote the amendment understanding that it did not grant this right and the right to self-defense was not dependent on that instrument for its existence. It was written to ensure that all future U.S. governments would respect the right to keep and bear arms, as a natural extension of the right to self-defense, in natural law and God's law, standing alone and independent of the Constitution.
President Trump is a damned dangerous fool, and anyone who seeks to undermine our right to self-defense and to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, through Trump's proposals, isn't a friend to the American people. Those who seek added "security", in any manner other than targeting the criminals, who mock our existing gun laws, rape laws, robbery laws and homicide laws, only ensure security will not exist, our liberty will be eroded, and we will cease to be a free people. And for everyone who thinks Trump and his fellow despots are right, you can relinquish your rights like sheep, and I'll keep and defend my God-given Rights Until MY LAST DYING GASP.
John R. Houk, Editor
All source links or any text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.
© Justin O. Smith