No Threat To Disarm Citizens

Advertisement

Editor:

The back and forth debate about the Second Amendment may never reach a satisfactory answer. Unfortunately, though, it diverts attention from an issue which should be at the core of all discussion: Why does the NRA spend so much time, money and energy in a desperate attempt to defend something which is not under attack? There is not now, nor has there ever been a serious proposal from the U.S. government to confiscate all firearms from its citizens. The NRA continues to use this so-called threat as a huge income-producing machine, and America needs to ask, “based on what?” Where is the evidence that any real threat exists?

It simply does not. Any claims to the contrary must meet the test of factual evidence. This almost hysterical fear exists only in the dark minds of the NRA and the Tea Party, and it is used to manufacture fear to manipulate its naïve members.

Never, not once in our history, has the government either attempted or proposed to disarm all citizens. This has never been done, even during our most vulnerable times, including the Civil War, when all southern officers were allowed to return home carrying their side arms.

President Obama has repeatedly said he understands that legislation is not a viable option to curtail what amounts to terrorist attacks. He has not proposed confiscation of all firearms. Congress has not proposed confiscation of all firearms. The Supreme Court has ruled that possession of firearms is actually legal for self-defense. The NRA, therefore, is obligated to provide factual evidence of the so-called “threat.”

They may claim that they feel a constant vigil must be maintained to prevent the possibility of confiscation. Their enormous single-minded effort to accomplish this, however, is way out of proportion to any actual fact.

In examining this all-consuming crusade, it becomes clear that using unwarranted fear is an obvious tool used by the NRA to accomplish goals which have nothing to do with “protecting” anyone. As long as they can perpetuate this dark myth, they stand to control their income and power. Truly, those are the things they cling to with their cold dead hand.

Noble Collins

Comments

don evans 1 year, 5 months ago

Incremental taking of guaranteed Constitutional rights by the State all based on the lie of wanting to protect us. You and the Stateists aren't fooling anyone with your" it's for the children" mantra. You fear the common man's ability to have a means to protect themselve's from the tyranny of an ever growing corrupt government. I'll take the NRA over the Obamanista's any day.

1

ALLAN SIMS 1 year, 5 months ago

Mr. Collins, this statement of yours “There is not now, nor has there ever been a serious proposal from the U.S. government to confiscate all firearms from its citizens.” while technically correct is grossly misleading to those not minutely familiar with the situation.
You ask where the real threat exists, and proclaim it does not. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. When one sees what they consider perfection, they ignore the little lines and wrinkles that disprove that concept. To one that doesn’t see the presumed perfection, those lines and wrinkles are evidence of the imperfect veneer, covering the hideousness underneath.

Wouldn’t life be wonderful if what you say is true? Hidden in your message is the desire that we implicitly trust a regime that has constantly attempted to divide us, by race, by income, by faith or the lack of it and by this 2nd amendment question. Why should we believe you? Sure, you are on safe ground in saying it never happened, but in deep water in saying it won’t.

One of the proofs you ignore or are ignorant of, is the treaty they attempted to sign with the UN, which would have been an end run around the senate, making the UN treaty the law of our land, without senate input. That law would have required registration of all weapons, and the surrendering of all but a few shotguns and hunting rifles. Mrs. Clinton relented at the last moment only because 50 senators personally requested she reconsider it.

Another is the massive buildup of DHS (Dept of Homeland Security) in personnel and equipment. 2500 armored personnel carriers with mini-gun mounts on the roof? These are being strategically located around the nation. Why do they need so many? I personally read (On a federal website) the purchase order for 700 million rounds purchased by DHS, to be delivered over the next 5 years. (Some say that has now been increased to over 4 billion.) Ostensibly, they are for training. In the entire Iraqi war, we fired only 78 million rounds. 700 million? Hollow points? Double 00 buck? Why?

I’m not a member of the NRA, but I should be, and so should most of us. Our own congress is wavering, so who then do we look to?

Finally, the 2nd amendment, as you point out is proved to be for individual benefit. Why must we submit to any reduction of that? (We’ve already submitted too much. We can’t own automatic weapons, can’t carry knives over a certain length nor can we buy a weapon without our privacy being rendered non-existent.) Yet, here is the President of our country attacking an important portion of our remaining rights. That itself is the proof you deny.

Therefore your technically correct statements are not only misleading, but drip with the message of lulling the unwitting to sleep.

0

Dan Haapala 1 year, 5 months ago

History says otherwise, following the Spanish American war of 1898, the government attemted to get control of State militias, an indirect attemtp at gun control. Look up the Dick Act of 1903. Progressives, Including Teddy Roosevelt, have been after guns since their beginning. Date refer to Marx.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.