JACK'S BLOG
|
|
7/14/2012 5 Comments Where do we draw a line?OpinionREGARDLESS OF WHO wins the elections in November, we face the greatest challenge to our liberty in the history of our Republic. We are at the brink of being disarmed. President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, are working assiduously to make the United States a signatory to the United Nations Gun Ban Treaty. If ratified by the United States Senate, which is dominated by the President's political party, we will lose our right to bear arms inasmuch as this treaty would supersede our Constitutional Second Amendment Rights. Indeed, even if the President and his majority in the Senate are not reelected, they would have time to sign and ratify the treaty before they are forced to vacate their offices. You may check out these assertions if you like. The President and the Secretary of State have made no secret of their opinions in this matter. It is highly unlikely that any argument will dissuade those who agree with this ban. No statement of fact or opinion will sway their resolve to support the United Nations Gun Ban Treaty. They will always believe in the power of what ought to be over what is. As Rudyard Kipling wrote, these people ignore The Gods of the Copybook Headings – wisdom drawn from reality-based observations. “When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promiced [sic] perpetual peace. They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: 'Stick to the Devil you know.'” Remember, no tyrant has ever risen or remained in power over an armed populace. Am I saying that the President, his Administration, and his party are tyrants? No. They are merely the most recent manifestations of progressivism which has been attempting to replace our liberty with the tyranny of egalitarianism since the beginning of the Twentieth Century. With the signing of the Interstate Commerce Act 1887, progressives laid the cornerstone of a central government that could regulate every aspect of our lives and the erosion of our liberties began. The progressives have made great strides since that time. They have used the general welfare and commerce portions of the Constitution to chip away at every limitation on the enumerated powers of the federal government. However, for them to go further, they must insure that the people are submissive to their desires. They must disarm us. Like the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy, they understand that America's armed population is not to be trifled with. I remember listening to an interview with a senior officer of the Japanese Self Defense Forces who had served as an officer in the Imperial Navy during World War II. At the end of the interview he was asked why the Japanese hadn't invaded the West Coast of the United States after their successful attack on Pearl Harbor. The interviewer qualified his question by observing that with the destruction of the Pacific Fleet, there was nothing to prevent such an invasion. The Japanese officer agreed with the interviewer to a point. Yes, we had no significant Army to oppose such an invasion. However, the officer pointed out, they were afraid of the armed civilians in America, most of whom had military-caliber weapons and took great pride in their proficiency with them. The Japanese high command knew that they would be out-manned and out-gunned as soon as they pushed their invasion far enough inland where their army would be beyond the covering fire of their naval forces, and they expected to lose. I know too that I could not dissuade those who might support the U.N. Gun Ban Treaty by any recitation of the facts that support private gun ownership. When they aver that U.S. murder rates are unconscionably high because of unfettered gun ownership, they do not care that those murder rates are highest in those places with the most restrictive gun ownership laws. When they aver that other countries enjoy lower crime rates because citizens are not allowed to have guns, they do not care that the evidence shows that foreign crimes rates have risen after guns were taken away from citizens. The simple truth is that anti-gun people will not be dissuaded by scientific proofs and evidence. They are influenced only by opinion – their opinion – and their only argument is to continuously repeat the same opinions. Unfortunately, the President probably will sign the U.N. Gun Ban Treaty regardless of anything we say or do. Our only hope is to convince our legislators in the United States Senate that it is not in their interest to ratify that treaty. Don't waste your time participating in Internet petitions. These have no force. Only letters and calls to your Senator, a flood of them, can influence their action. Even though a majority of us may speak our opposition to the U.N. Gun Ban Treaty, there are progressive Senators who will vote against the will of the people and the Treaty may be ratified. Still, we must try. We cannot allow our liberties to be eroded any further. At some point we must proclaim, "This far and no farther!" Then, we must turn them back.
5 Comments
7/15/2012 12:04:56 am
The government banned alcohol during prohibition, and nobody stopped drinking. The government has banned drugs and can't get them off the streets. Why does anyone thing the government can take guns away from American hunters, which form the third best equipped army in the world?
Reply
7/15/2012 04:25:59 am
Not being much of a student of political science, help me here. How can it be that a treaty could supersede our constitution?
Reply
7/15/2012 06:34:37 am
You have spotted one of the really arcane points of Constitutional Law. I can't do justice to the arguments involved in a few words. You would have to study the subject in much greater depth. However, fundamentally the argument is that when the United States commits itself to a binding international agreement, it can't later fall back on its own laws as an excuse to avoid the agreement. Now, some argue that an international agreement that contravenes our own laws is not valid ab initio (from its inception) and thus the U.S. is not reneging on an international agreement if it contravenes the Constitution.
Reply
7/15/2012 09:45:16 am
Interesting post, Jack. As you probably would have guessed, I am not a fan of the Second Amendment and think the number of guns per person in the U.S. is beyond ridiculous. It's like a gun obsession. However, I also think that the guns that are counted are the ones owned by law-abiding citizens, recreational hunters, etc. The guns that do crimes are not registered anyway, and I doubt that new laws/treaties will do much to change that.
Reply
7/15/2012 10:47:47 am
Laura: Fortunately for you there are many millions of "law-abiding" citizens who cherish their 2nd Amendment Rights and help keep you safe from tyranny. Just remember to support them in their noble cause and don't allow you fear of guns to inspire you to support those who would take our guns away. If they succeed, you safety and freedom as well as ours will be in peril.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
More than 500 postings have accumulated since 2011. Some categories (listed below) are self explanatory, others require some explanation (see below):
CategoriesAll America Army Life Blogging Cuba Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 2016 Entrepreneurs Food Good Reads History Humor Infantry School In The News Korea Middle East Oh Dark Thirty Opinion Sea Scouts Short Story Sponsored Survey Technology Television Terrorism Today's Chuckle Veterans Vietnam Writing Explanations |
Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 Jack Durish All rights reserved
|
Web Hosting by iPage
|