Here is the White House petition that the “Security and Safety comes before Freedom” gun-grabbers have put up:
The goal of this petition is to force the Obama Administration to produce legislation that limits access to guns. While a national dialogue is critical, laws are the only means in which we can reduce the number of people murdered in gun related deaths.
Powerful lobbying groups allow the ownership of guns to reach beyond the Constitution’s intended purpose of the right to bear arms. Therefore, Congress must act on what is stated law, and face the reality that access to firearms reaches beyond what the Second Amendment intends to achieve.
The signatures on this petition represent a collective demand for a bipartisan discussion resulting in a set of laws that regulates how a citizen obtains a gun.
- “ the only means in which we can reduce the number of people murdered in gun related deaths” – Really? That presumes that the only thing that can be done is to establish more and more laws – external governance. Why is it that the real underlying cause is the Culture (under Progressive manipulation) has been a desensitizing towards the value of a human life? Are they saying inculcating a real reverence for life, strengthening the internal values, is a worse way to solve the problem? Or does that interfere with that other Progressive value – killing of unborn babies upon demand?
- ” beyond the Constitution’s intended purpose of the right to bear arms” – What I was taught in school (back in the “dirt making” age when teachers actually taught our true history) was that this was a citizen’s last resort against an overbearing Government like that of the British King. So, what IS going beyond the Constitution’s intended purpose with respect to ordinary citizens? I remind these folks that OUR government (versus the faux foreign political policy important from Germany that seems to have take root here) was founded on the idea that Government receives its legitimacy from its citizens. Removing the ability for citizens to protect themselves from any threat, foreign or domestic, is by definition, not a Constitutional value.
These folks never define what they mean “beyond” – what constitutes it, why is it bad, nor why THEY get to define it. Is this another one of those “Hope and Change” things – read into it what you want? Yeah, great way to create public policy – let’s be as inspecific as possible to allow pretty much anything to happen.
They blame it on “lobbyists” (you know, the same kind of folks that Obama said would never work in his Administration – and do?) with nary a thought, I guess, that 10s if not 100s of millions of Americans, well, just LIKE to have guns. And love the Freedom to have them and use them just because…..well, because.
Because Freedom means that a reason doesn’t have to be explained….it just is. Add this from the Corner as well:
American liberties, including the Second Amendment and the 40-plus state-level guarantees of the right to bear arms, pre-exist the federal government, and are defined and protected in the same document from which the state derives its authority and its structure. In a free republic, the people cannot be disarmed by the government, for they are its employers, and they did not give up their individual rights when they consented to its creation. There is no clause in our charters of liberty that allows for the people to be deprived of their freedom if and when a few individuals abuse theirs.
While we do consent to give up certain aspect of our natural and Creator endowed Rights when we live in Society and assent to a Government, that snippet is correct in something that many on the left conveniently and continually forget: Individuals are to be pre-eminent and the Govt secondary. Too often, those in Govt, elected, appointed and employed, believe that the relationship is the other way around.
It also points out another grim fact – that there are those that are all too willing to trade Freedom for a small measure of security. Given my years now on this dirt ball, I have seen far too many slippery slope actions enacted by those are far too willing to impose their ideological bent of control on others that are mere takings of Freedom. In this, we do need to resist any attempt – one should not judge the unknown intents of millions simply for the action of a very few.
(H/T: The Blaze)