Quick Thoughts on the 2nd Amendment

Jan 19 was Gun Appreciation Day. All over the country, gun rights advocates gathered on the steps of state capitols to declare that we will not go softly into the night. We will not go the way of Holland, falling to socialists in 5 days because they weren't armed. We will not have God-given rights defined by our founding fathers in the Constitution taken away by executive order of a President who cheated his way into a second term.

Some think that gun rights are about skeet shooting or hunting. That's included, but that's not really what the Founding Fathers were worried about. Others take gun rights a step further, to personal and property protection. Again, that's included, but not really the ultimate intent of why the Founding Fathers wanted to secure the right to be armed.

The fathers of this nation wanted to limit government. The Second Amendment is about preventing military and government coercion. The right of a citizenry to arm themselves comparable to the military is a deterrent comparable to the little old lady armed to the teeth- she may be old, weak, and medically frail, but her sidearm levels the playing field between her and the strong healthy 20-something criminal intent on harming her, taking her property, or even her life.

There are those who think it's offensive and disgusting to even consider comparing Obama to Hitler. I will quote my brother's thoughts on this (a FB comment):

Comparing two things that are similar happens quite frequently. Why is it offensive and disgusting? Because we have the benefit of hindsight, a view of their end-game on one, and a large gaping hole to the other. A comparative analysis in an attempt to predict the future, or prevent a negative future or event also happens with relative frequency. I'm not trying to put anyone down, but why do you think its offensive?
I agree that we should promote what we believe in over putting something/someone else down. But in a comparative analysis or assessment you've got to weigh the pros as cons of both sides. Or at the least be aware of the pros and cons of both sides.

The reality is that Obama may be doing it slower, but he's attempting the same path der Fuhrer took prior to WW2. With the benefit of hindsight, why would anyone not take advantage of that wisdom?

The reality is that the right to arm oneself was spelled out for the express purpose of keeping the government in check. Some elected officials have backed us up on this.

7 January 2013

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

We, the elected sheriffs of Utah, like so many of our fellow Americans, are literally heartbroken for the loved ones of the murdered victims in Connecticut. As Utahans, we are not strangers to this kind of carnage – one of the latest being the 2007 Trolley Square murders wherein nine innocents were gunned down – five losing their lives.

We also recognize the scores of other recent domestic massacres, which have decimated countless honorable lives. As Americans, we value the sanctity of life. Furthermore, similar to our inspired Founders, we acknowledge our subservience to a higher power.

With the number of mass shootings America has endured, it is easy to demonize firearms; it is also foolish and prejudiced. Firearms are nothing more than instruments, valuable and potentially dangerous, but instruments nonetheless. Malevolent souls, like the criminals who commit mass murders, will always exploit valuable instruments in the pursuit of evil. As professional peace officers, if we understand nothing else, we understand this: lawful violence must sometimes be employed to deter and stop criminal violence. Consequently, the citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality.

As your administration and Congress continue to grapple with the complex issue of firearm regulations, we pray that the Almighty will guide the People’s Representatives collectively. For that reason, it is imperative this discussion be had in Congress, not silenced unilaterally by executive orders. As you deliberate, please remember the Founders of this great nation created the Constitution, and its accompanying Bill of Rights, in an effort to protect citizens from all forms of tyrannical subjugation.

We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights-in particular Amendment II-has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.

The Utah Sheriffs’ Association

One Utah Sheriff's signature was missing- Salt Lake County Sheriff Jim Winder. I asked him:

Why didn't you back my right to carry a gun in your county and not be disarmed by federal agents? Do you not uphold the Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment?

Rosa Parks didn't have a "need" to sit at the front of the bus, but that doesn't mean she didn't have the right to do so.

I may not "need" to carry a bigger clip, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to do so.

Man up and take the solemn vow you made when you became sheriff seriously.

Why didn't Sheriff Winder sign this letter? Why was he not willing to re-affirm the oath he took when he took the badge?

I guess the part of this whole deal that bothers me the most is that there are those who would give up a little freedom to get safety. I have to agree with our dear Brother Franklin- they deserve neither.

Do I need an Ak47 to hunt a deer? No. Am I comfortable with the general public owning large clips and automatic weapons? No. But something I am far, far more uncomfortable with is someone attempting to take away my freedom. Even pieces of it. This isn't a gun debate, this is a freedom debate, and the fact you are willing to hand over a few of your freedoms... any of them, is alarming at best.

Thank you, dear FB friend from ages past who put it much better than I could have.