I was reading this “letter to the editor” from the newsleader.com, a news organization that purportedly serves “the central Shenandoah valley (VA), website. As one might suspect I have a couple of issues with the whole premise of repealing any of the specific enumerated rights contained within the Bill of Rights.
1. You CAN NOT repeal the second amendment, period, end of story. Some folks may wish that it could be done, mainly because they are so enamored of the State they believe their rights result from various proclamations from the State, but that is not the case. Add to this the fact they have limited knowledge of what they speak and you get such asinine comments as the one spewed by this individual in this opinion piece.
2. The editorialist, in this instance, said until we the people “demand an end to the production, distribution, sale and ownership of handguns and assault weapons and the repeal of the Second Amendment, we are going to continue to reap the whirlwind of gun violence.” (my emphasis) Notice that he says what he thinks needs to be done, but doesn’t get into specifics about HOW to do it. I attribute this to his overall lack of knowledge on the subject (alluded to in the paragraph above) and his utter and complete reliance upon the State (also alluded to above) to work out all the details and then carry them out.
The fact of the matter is that the Bill of Rights list certain rights that the founders thought important enough to enumerate with the EXPLICIT purpose of declaring that “government shall make no laws” or “shall not be infringed”. The Bill of Rights, in reality, is a very short list of unalienable rights that existed before the Constitution was ever written, and that’s the part that the statist don’t get. You can rip the second amendment from every copy of the Constitution in existence today and remove it from any further reprints and we would still retain that right. Saying the second amendment can be repealed is like saying the first amendment can be repealed (another point the statist fail to recognize).
When a hoplophobe talks of ending “ownership” of “guns” what they are really saying is they want full scale confiscation of guns already in the hands of law abiding citizens. As far as how this type of confiscation of personal property from law abiding (at least to that point anyway) citizens is rarely ever discussed except in this editorial from 2007. In that particular op-ed piece the author gets very specific about how this could be accomplished. The only problem with his logic is he is working within the construct of a statist mentality, i.e. he fully expects that all 80 or 90 million gun owners in the US would just hand over their private property just because the State said they had to.
What never enters into his thought processes is the fact that some gun owners would never hand over their property without a fight. He, as one blogger posted, doesn’t understand the “Law of Unintended Consequences”. Sure there would be a certain percentage of gun owners that would “do the right thing” and hand over their guns. I actually believe that most gun owners would do just that and hand their property to the State, no questions asked. But what about those that won’t lay down and do what they are told? How many people, US citizens, will the State be ready to KILL to prove their power over “we the people”? It’s easy to sit in one’s nice comfy office and plot out the process and procedures to handle the mass confiscation of private property, implementation is a whole other matter.
Here’s what I want these two individuals, and all others of the same opinion, to do if the scenario that the op-ed piece in the Toledo Blade writes about comes to pass. I want YOU to come get my guns. Don’t send some poor government schmuck that’s “in it for a paycheck” to my door to confiscate my personal property. Put your arse where your mouth is and YOU come to my door to steal my stuff. You will learn a hard lesson in the law of unintended consequences.
These are strong words and my belief is that this scenario will never play itself out as the State realizes exactly what I’m saying to be true, at this point in time anyway. But I’m willing to put my arse where my mouth is and die to protect my right to private property and I figure most of the hoplophobe’s out there are great at talking the talk but when it comes to walking they walk they just ain’t up to it.
To a finer point, when you think about it what they are advocating would, in all likelihood, result in slaughter of the magnitude never seen in this country. The carnage of the “Civil War” would pale in comparison. All in the name of ending gun violence. Ironic, don’t you think?
Just my thoughts.
