Friday, September 29, 2006

That Archaic, Meaningless Second Ammendment

I got a lot of crap about my ardent support for the Second Ammendment, it was archaic, it was about letting the National Guard have guns, it was pointless machismo, it's dangerous, it could never happen here...

I am not happy to be proven right, I vastly preferred theory and principle. Just so we know what's going on, the US Senate (including 12 Democrats) voted to approve the Detainee Act. Now the President gets to decide which Americans are Enemy Combatants, said Enemies no longer have Habeus Corpus, have no right to an open trial with a jury of their peers, cannot challenge secret information, and can be treated any way the President decides to torture them. That's Americans, folks. It gets a little worse if you're a foreigner.

Simply put Americans can now disappear into the Federal maw, be tortured, and get no trial, or get a kangeroo court. If you don't get your day in court it makes it seem unreasonable to let a Federal Law Enforcement Officer get his hands on you, doesn't it? I think I'd rather not have their job.

For those of you who think gun control is about safety and security, you now have an example of how the Federal Government thinks in terms of safety and security. If you're in the habit of strongly expressing dissenting political thought, I suggest that this might be a good time to go buy a large caliber semi-automatic rifle and a large caliber pistol and enroll in a good safety and usage class, become competetent and efficient. Locking them up might be a bad idea, it would be better to teach your kids than to want one and not have it. Let me be very clear, I am advocating that you avail yourself of your Second Ammendment right to keep and bear arms, to become safe and efficient in their usage, and to know the law regarding firearms and their usage.

What George II and his cronies seem to neglect in their thinking is just how dangerous this makes being arrested, for anything. Here's the kicker, once you're in anyone's custody, the Feds can step in and name you Enemy. They don't have to prove squat, just take you.

Ridenbaugh Press suggests that you "remember who did this to you," I second that, neither forget, nor forgive. War has been declared on the citizens of the United States of America by President Bush, Senate Republicans, and Twelve so-called Democratic Senators.


Anonymous said...

I'll register some other time but I find your feelings, ideas on immigration and firearms interesting and to be not at all far from mine.

I was doing some stuffing for a local campaign and I was some what disgusted by two of the ladies helping that were anti-gun....rabid anti gun. Made me think I didn't belong there!

I've been around firearms pretty much my entire life, have a permit, had been a reserve police officer in CA. Spent a fair amount of time in Laos in the 60s and 70s (there was a little war on there) and now live in rural Clackamas County.

Recently we had a run in with a neighbor's dog. About 12 hours after the incident a deputy was able to come by to take a report.

I am sure that if shots had been fired or other things had happened we would have had quicker response. But with some of the big counties we have here and the limited number of people on duty quite often you have just no bodies to throw at a problem. The other effects are if the problem escalates or is so serious you need back up it is going to take a while to get it. And there is a subtle pressure to resolve things quickly. One incident I can think of had two Molalla officers and three Sheriff's Deputies on that one scene. Five cars...what was left for that part of the county and Molalla? Not a lot.

All of the Duputies I have chatted with feel that it is normal and reasonable (or in some cases you are stupid if you don't have a shotgun or something) for a homeowner or resident in the county to have a firearm for protection. In a lot of cases they will only be able to pick up the pieces and fill out reports.

I don't think I will ever have to use a firearm for protection but I am happy I have one to use if I need to and I am happy that it is indeed in the Constitution.

I am puzzled that anyone cannot see the problems we have from undocumented workers as well as the problems certain countries, not just Mexico, have that they find some relief from by exporting them to the U.S.

The problems include pay and working conditions, underground economy, security problems (if they don't have much of a problem getting and staying here... how about real threats to us?) drugs (all due respect but after being on a Grand Jury it seems like certain drug groups find them to be a great supply of workers). Don't get me wrong, plenty of them are hard workers and all that but that still doesn't make it right. Right before we moved up here from California we had some Mexican friends complaining about more recent chasers of the American dream, coming from poorer areas of Mexico and parts of Central and South America being willing to work harder for less money. We have enough pressure on downward working conditions and wages we don't have to invite more of that pressure to work against us.

We need to get real and protect Americans. Try getting a job in some parts of the world as an American, we tend to be way to easy and to declare another "once in a lifetime" amnesty is just saying...wait and we will make you legal!

Chuck Butcher said...

wow, you went back aways. I'm glad I get email notification of comments or I'd have missed this.
I'm glad you stopped by and spent some time on this, and commented.

The 2nd A is such an oddity in this world, and what it recognizes is even odder. The idea that a citizen is co-equal to the government by being armed was radical then and still is. It is a simple enough concept that in the end the guarantee that a government cannot oppress its citizenry is that the citizenry can oppose it by force of arms. There are checks and balances built into the "governing contract" but these are, finally, no more than written words - they have no effective force if abrogated.

I expect to never need a firearm for personal protection, it is a rarity under most circumstances and more rare where I live. However, I have no intention of needing one and not having one, just because it is a rarity. My experience and the polling datat suggests that moset rank and file police officers have no problem with the 2nd, it is the political portion that does.

Being a Democrat I know some very anti-gun folks, and I feel quite sure that their voices should be heard, and then filed under - to be persuaded.