Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Gun Control

I'm never going to pretend to be an expert on politics, and quite honestly, I'm not even going to read enough of the news to make this an educated post. If it turns out that I state something that is completely contrary to the actual facts, I don't even want to here about it. This is just a warning to society.

I've been hearing a lot of talk about President Obama and gun control. The common rumour going around is that if he had his way, no one except for the police and military would have weapons. I find it difficult to believe that a man as educated as himself could actually believe such a thing, but if it is true, we cannot allow the other uneducated members of the United States fall into the same idea.

I understand the need for gun registration and regulation. Knowing who owns what guns can help avoid and prosecute criminal activity, but getting rid of them altogether would be the most direct violation of the constitution since the day our country was founded. People complain that we should have the right to guns for recreation or self defense, but I think that the real reason that taking away our guns is such a bad idea is because we need guns to take over the government. When Thomas Jefferson wrote The Declaration of Independence he stated, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of [the people's natural rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." It would be nice if we could always abolish these government without violence, but this often isn't the case, hence in the bill of rights we were given the right to bear arms.

So far, we have not had the need to overthrow our government because our leaders have mostly stuck to the Constitution. They may have bee a little flexible in their interpretation here and there, but they've never done anything that just completely disregarded it. If we were denied the right to bear arms, then for the first time ever, we would need our arms. It makes sense that Barack may want to limit our ability to take over his power; from a Machiavellian standpoint, keeping us at bay is the right thing to do. Quite frankly, taking away the weapons of the people is the best first step to establishing a military dictatorship. If the people of America care for their Nation, then this must not happen.

This brings up an interesting point; if President Obama were to attempt to outlaw guns, would it be ethical to assassinate him? I'm a little torn on this subject because it certainly would help protect our country from tyranny and I'm sure that any of our founding fathers would want the aspiring dictator out of power as soon as possible, however I think and hope that it would not be necessary. Personally, I would not assassinate him because I have confidence that our government has enough checks and balances in place that a law to ban guns would never pass. Perhaps little Barack missed the day in 3rd grade when they went over the bill of rights, but I doubt that the entire congress and supreme court were absent on the same day.

If, however, by some means the President manages to violate our right to arms, he should count himself lucky to just be impeached. I hope that the patriotic, yet rash, people do not need to completely overthrow the government or assassinate the President. If justice prevails though, the President would be impeached, and then executed because high treason is a capital offense.


  1. A few million disgruntled citizens wielding hunting rifles would be easily exterminated by a few aircraft with mass ordnance. The "minute-man argument" has unfortunately been made moot via technology. There weren't such things as tanks and weapons of mass destruction when these documents were drafted, and in the case where the citizens rise up, these weapons would almost certainly be used.

  2. You do have a pretty good point. Still though, I feel like if close to the entire country was on board with a coup (probably including some military officials), then they could do it and some arms would help. They could at least help in a battle against police officers or something.

    Your point does make me think more about what it does mean to bear arms though. I think the only good weapon that common people have against the government is the internet and media now. At any rate, I still feel that taking away what little fire-power the people have is a violation of their rights.

  3. In my opinion, we the citizens haven't had control of the real arms for some time now. I agree with your statement that information is one of the few tools we have left. Hopefully we can protect our use of that weapon a bit better.