By Susan Steffen-Kraft
Now you might well ask and wonder what dog does she have in this fight? I state for the record, that up to this point in my life I have never owned a gun, so I am actually neutral in this except for one thing; I believe in the 2nd Amendment which is part of the Constitution. I will defend other people's rights to own and bear arms but only if, of course, they are citizens. As far as defending myself....knives, pepper spray, wasp spray, baseball bats, etc. are quite useful and at this point still legal. These are the weapons of my choosing at this time; whether that will change or not I cannot tell you. I firmly believe you should be able to defend yourself and your family if necessary and by whatever means you have available. Don't agree with that....Tough!
If they take away your right to defend with a gun then next will be our knives, pepper spray, baseball bats, karate, judo, and so on. The government is control hungry and will not stop at your guns; you are foolish you if you think so.
To say that guns are to blame for a crime then, if you believe in and read the Bible, you should know that Cain who committed the first murder did not own a gun. Thus, murders can occur in any way, shape and form so we would have to ban pillows for example that have been used to smother someone. Silly, right?
An open letter from a soldier who had to deal with a second shooting at Fort Hood, Texas because of the politics that brings about a politically gun free zone states that:
“My name is First Lieutenant Patrick Cook of the 49th Transportation Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas. . . I found myself trapped in an enclosed room with fourteen of my fellow Soldiers, one of whom was barricading the door against a madman with a .45 pistol when he was fatally shot. . .
"I knew this was going to happen. I had been saying for five years that Fort Hood was a tinderbox of another massacre waiting to happen. It had to happen, because our betters failed to learn the obvious lesson of five years ago [when U.S. Army major and psychiatrist Nidal Hasan, fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others]. Worse yet, I know it will happen again. More will die, more will be wounded, more families will be torn apart, needlessly. It happened again, and will happen again, because Fort Hood is a gun free zone . . .
“When the first shots rang out, my hand reached to my belt for something that wasn’t there. Something that could have put a stop to the bloodshed, could have made it merely an ‘ugly incident’ instead of the horrific massacre that I will surely remember as the darkest twenty minutes of my life. Stripped of my God-given Right to arm myself, the only defensive posture I had left was to lie prostrate on the ground, and wait to die".
This is what we have come too, that soldiers have no guns at times. Law abiding citizens are one of the deterrents to stopping someone who is more than willing to murder others such as the Ft. Hood shooter to give an example. That even military had no protection at that moment and time is rotten to say the least.
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed,” stated Jefferson in a letter to John Cartwright on June 5, 1824.
The unalienable right to freedom from violent harm, and the right to self-defense, both exist before and outside of secular government. Below are four examples of this:
1. Torah: Exodus 22:2.
2. Talmud: Jewish law set forth in the Talmud states, “If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.” (Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994,2, 72a; The Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakoth. 1990, 58a, 62b).
3. Roman Catholic Doctrine: Christian doctrine has long asserted the right and duty of self defense. “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.” See Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994, sections 2263-65 (citing and quoting Thomas Aquinas).
4. Protestant Doctrine: Individual has personal and unalienable right to self-defense, even against government. Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex 1982, pp. 159-166, 183-185 (Sprinkle Publications edition.) Jesus advised his disciples to arm themselves in view of likely persecution. Luke 22:36
“They’re quick to say they’re going to take the guns,” King said. “But they don’t tell you the law doesn’t apply to long guns, or that these families can sell [their loved one’s] pistol or apply to keep it.”
The law and other jurisdiction in New York State are trying to enforce State Penal Law 265.20 (f)actually does not call for gun confiscation but it requires those who inherit the weapon to dispose of the weapon or turn it over to an “appropriate official.” Under the law, police agencies can hold weapons for up to two years before disposing of them.
“These gun collections can value into the hundreds of thousands,” Saraceno told Fox News. “If a police officer came to my door without a warrant signed by a judge, I’m not giving them anything. Most people don’t know that and get intimidated.”
Now do you honestly think that they will destroy something that valuable? Heck no! They will sell or keep them for themselves. Civil Forfeiture in which the police get to keep things and or sell them is in my opinion similar to some degree.
If you know me you know I have no respect or love for the UN. Get Us Out of the UN and get the UN out of the U.S.
The UN has tried to intervene itself into the United States by trying to get us to have very strict gun control laws. The human rights chief Zeid Ra'ad Hussein has urged for America to stop the "preventable violent attacks" with "legal framework" that apparently other countries use. Well, he can go to "hell in a hand basket"! He has no business telling us anything. Furthermore the Secretary of State, Mr. John Kerry has illegally and in violation of the Constitution of our country has signed the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. President Obama has done enough to bring in Steps 6 &7 in this United Nations disarmament plan. These two are listed below:
“6. Finally, codification of laws to completely makes any and all firearms illegal to own, possess or use outside of military and law enforcement usage.
7. Creation of a United Nations Police Task force with the specific mission of assisting member nations with the collection of weaponry from civilian hands”.
If the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land then legislation that infringes on those inalienable rights, is most definitely unjust and against our Constitution. Is would be illegal, if it presented upon to vote, for this kind of legislation. There is an oath to protect the Constitution and anyone who takes that oath is then violating what they swore to protect. This is done in such a manner that it is recorder as evidence thus we should have recourse against them.
Police who swore the same oath and attempt, whether they are successful or not, to confiscate any arms, are now criminals also. Of course, where an actual crime is involved then this would not be true.
Judges can do their jobs or violate the Constitution from the bench. The courts have the records of evidence that they committed the highest of crimes. I suspect that many would be tossed if we pursued this and showed to the public their own admission of their crime. We the citizens and we who vote should expect our politicians, lawyers, judges, sheriffs, and the police to honor the oaths they swore.
They all know the law and we should make no exceptions about this. Break the law and you are finished. That is what they do to someone like you and me who are not part of these professions. Pleading ignorance does not work and they all should be held to a high standard.
Maybe fear of stupidity should be what he should have written. It has become crazy when a child is suspended from school for supposedly nibbling a pop tart into the shape of a gun. Indeed, one might say that sheer lunacy is now the norm. He was seven at the time (March 1, 2013) and three years later the settlement finally came to an end in favor of the child. Seriously, whatever were they thinking? I would be more concerned that the Pop Tart was unhealthy for the child with the junk that is in Pop Tarts.
Next on the list of obsession with getting rid of guns is the fear that a Buzz Lightyear toy apparently resembles one. Yes, a five year old child lost his toy due to the stupidity of TSA agents. Taking a toy from a five year old who is crying his eyes out because his toy is taken hardly helps with National Security.
After a lot of upset the TSA finally returned the toy at a later date. Most definitely, they should have.
These examples are just two of the things that have happened when fanatics who are about getting rid of the 2nd Amendment and guns have their way.
Also have any of you made note that politicians who are favorable towards gun control still have bodyguards even in a gun-free zone. Those bodyguard pack heat and apparently the secret Service and other bodyguard types don't trust "No guns allowed" to keep the politicians they are guarding safe
If you preach it you should live it. Thus anyone in favor of this should give up their bodyguards packing heat and rely on whatever methods they choose for protection other then guns and guards.
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence.... From the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable.... The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place of honor with all that's good... A free people ought to be armed. - George Washington
I am closing this blog article with an old story from an old Readers Digest. Fits the gun control mentality I would say.
One day Mel Martin stopped by the chambers of a judge with whom he had a lunch appointment. As his friend changed from robe to jacket, Martin noticed a shiny black pistol holstered to the judge's shoulder.
The judge was a a firearms enthusiast, so Martin asked him why he was carrying it. His friend said that because of recent threats he had borrowed the pistol from the repository of confiscated weapons. Holding it up, the judge said, "I chose this one because it's so mean-looking, yet it hardly weighs a thing. I hope I don't need it, because I don't even know how to load it."
It's not hard," Martin said, examining it closely. "We can fill it at the water fountain on the way out."