Jefferson Said It Best

The Founding Fathers of the United States were brilliant. I think it becomes more and more obvious as we get older, and see through our own experiences what they knew well over 200 years ago.

The 2nd Amendment is greatly debated in the USA...but only after tragic events of mass murder. It is then, when emotions become sufficiently charged, that some politician steps up and says, "we've got to do something to stop the insanity." This is when the gun control debates begin.

I think Jefferson has said it best:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

The first quote above addresses the issue every advocate of the 2nd Amendment will tell you. Law abiding gun owners are not the problem, yet gun control will not deter the determined criminal.

The second and third quote go together. Jefferson is saying beware of those that want to implement gun control. It is usually the government, and the government cannot be trusted.

Lastly - let's not forget history. Who are the greatest mass murderers of all time? Governments! If you would like to single out a few of the more notable names in mass genocide, let's talk about the following:
Mao Tse Tung (estimated between 50-78 million killed)
Adolf Hitler (est. 12 million killed in concentration camps and 3 million Russian POWs)
Jozef Stalin (estimated 6 million killed)

What do all three of these people have in common? They went to great lengths to ensure the public was completely disarmed and confiscated guns.

Don't think it can happen in this day and age? That is naive. Government mass genocide still occurs even today, and there are plenty of notables in recent history.

Don't think it can happen in the United States? I'm not saying it will happen, just that it is possible.

New York just passed the most stringent gun control legislation in late night, closed door sessions. It was completed in rather arrogant style with Gov. Andrew Cuomo calling gun rights advocates, "extremists."  Will other states follow suit?  There are talks going on in the state of Washington where I live.  I'm sure the same is occuring in other heavily liberal states.  It would be one thing if this was put to a vote by the people, and the majority decided to change the laws.  But it appears the public is not being included in the decision making process.  Didn't Jefferson mention something about the tyranny of government...?

Want more evidence?

President Obama's former White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, referred to Chairman Mao as one of her two "favorite political philosophers," and "one of the two who I turned to the most...."

President Obama's "Manufacturing Czar," Ron Bloom on the free market system and Chairman Mao: "We get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense.... We know this is largely about power....We kind of agree with Mao, that power comes from the barrel of a gun."

Then there is William Ayers, alleged friend of President Obama, and an unrepentant terrorist bomber and member of the Weather Underground. The Weather Underground was infiltrated by the FBI. One of the FBI moles came forward and talked about a plan the Weather Underground wanted to hatch. Part of the plan included a communist over throw of the American government, and rounding up citizens and taking them to "re-education centers" in the southwest. According to Ayers, they knew not everyone could be re-habilitated, and estimated that 35 million would become casualties. If successfully, Ayers and his cronies would have surpassed Hitler on the genocide scale.

So, while a government overthrow and mass genocide do not seem likely, there are actual people, alive and residing in the United States today, that have this exact vision. The 2nd Amendment is a huge barrier in preventing something like that from ever occurring.

Fight the anti-gun crowd and protect the 2nd Amendment. Jefferson was right!
BizSuitStacy BizSuitStacy
56-60, T
3 Responses Jan 23, 2013

Right.

I am a gun owner and believe that responsible law abiding citizens should own guns. That being said I don't believe that anyone needs an automatic weapon or high capacity magazines. Jefferson was no doubt one of the most remarkable men in US history but I don't think he had assault rifles in mind when the 2nd amendment was drafted. Also the constitution is not carved in stone, it is a work in progress hence amendments....like abolishing slavery ..that sort of stuff? Don't get me wrong I was a bit pissed off when I had to hand in my M1 Garand.and I know there were some who didn't but that makes them easier to catch. Passing a law will never stop any crime 100 % but how many kids can be saved by weeding out the loonies ratbags and nutters and trying to stop these weapons which are not designed for hunting or target shooting but killing en masse. In Jefferson's day the height of firearm technology was the musket which even the most skilled shooter could fire about 6 rounds per minute!! Not 600. I respect your right to express your opinion but communist takeover??? Conspiracy to take over the US?? I think some of the soap box orators out there are getting a little carried away! Cheers AB

With all due respect, you reasoning mirrors that of most progressives. First off, the assumption the Jefferson and the founding fathers didn't have assault rifles in mind is faulty reasoning. While they couldn't have envisioned an AK-47, they did understand the importance of being properly armed to be able to stand up to tyranny. 200+ years ago, properly armed meant a musket. Today, properly armed means a modern day weapon capable of allowing one to effectively defend themselves against the weapons an attacker would carry.

If you don't like the 2nd amendment, feel free to take on the challenge of changing it. But before applying your own interpretation, however, it's helpful to understand how the Supreme Court views the 2nd Amendment. In 2008, the Supreme Court reasoned that the Amendment's that the bit about
a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," did not supercede, or limit the scope of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The reason behind the court's decision? The fear of government would use that piece about the well regulated militia as a means of disarming the people. So, in reality, the progressive argument that the founding fathers weren't thinking about assault weapons, or that the reason we have the right to bear arms is simply for the purposes of organing a militia are founded in faulty reasoning.

Further, you help make my own argument for me with respect to high capacity magazines. Whether or not someone actually needs a high capacity magazine is irrelevant. That's akin to saying no one really needs a car that goes over 100 mph, yet, lots of cars will, and automobiles are responsible for more deaths than guns. The spirit of limiting magazine capacity is about minimizing the amount of damage someone can do with a gun. Yet, we all agree that the gun laws won't stop nut cases and the criminally evil from using guns to kill. It won't stop someone intent on killing from getting high capacity magazines. The problem with murderers is not the guns. The root cause of mass murder is a deterioration of our society, and the fact that we, as a society, do not have a good handle on dealing with people that have mental health issues. But dealing with the root cause of the problem is complication...and I agree with that. However, I find attempts to deal with any problem without addressing root cause is an attempt to sweep the problem under the carpet. It's much easier to take away guns, or to pass more restrictive gun laws than it is to deal with the problem effectively. Classic left wing thinking...we need to do something to make it look like we care...it doesn't matter if our solution doesn't actually work.

Case in point...during the assault weapons ban between 1994 and 2004, the US experienced an increase in gun crime. Since 2004, gun murders are on the decline, including mass murders. An assault weapons ban is a feel good solution. The facts and data, however, show that violent crime actually increases.

Think with your head and not your heart. No one wants to see children get gunned down. That's a horrific event...we can all agree. But making assault weapons illegal won't prevent tragic events like that which occured at Sandy Hook.

Remember too...Timothy McVay was able to kill hundreds by firing zero rounds.

As far as a communist take over...don't think it cannot happen. It can, just not in dramatic fashion as you are thinking. it would happen very slowly, over the period of several generations, so that the public doesn't even really recognize it's happening.

Stacy, you are absolutely correct on all points. The liberals/progressives never say what they really mean or what their ultimate goal is. We know, however, that their goal is to bring about the New World Order and to do that, they feel that they have to confiscate all the guns everywhere in the world. So far, they have most of them, except for America.

Indeed...the New World Order is something to fear. Watch out for the U.N...they are coming...