American Citizen Living In Canada

The current debate in the US over various gun control issues seems deliberately skewed to prevent a real discussion o f the most important issues at hand. [There is growing evidence that certain (possibly many) facets of the recent Sandy Hook massacre have not been accurately reported. Check the numerous "conspiracy theories" and judge for yourself.]

The proposed ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammo magazines for civilians is all the rage at the moment, but it fails to address the most important issues. Although mass murders with these types of weapons are big news at the moment, a ban on them would clearly have little effect on the actual firearm murder rate in the US, since by far most of such homicides are committed with handguns. It is also true that gun homicide rates there are notoriously high in exactly the areas where gun-restriction laws are also correspondingly strict.

Exactly why Piers Morgan is so fixated on semi-automatic rifles and large ammo clips is a bit of a mystery to me. He may be sincere in his desire to reduce gun violence, but his on-air tactics smack of an arrogant bully who will not look beyond his own myopic vision of his clearly inadequate "solution" to the problems he is addressing. No sane person would argue that we do not need more resources for the mentally ill or that gun ownership of all kinds should be preceded by thorough background checks with absolutely no loopholes.

However, there remains one important point which the mainstream media has only barely touched on, and which must be confronted by all intellectually honest people, regardless of their political affiliation: What should a civilian population do if a supposedly "democratic" government abandons its principles and turns tyrannical and despotic? I am not a gun enthusiast myself, but I believe this question lies at the heart of the intent of the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution.

Let's do a bit of historical review. There was a time when a civilian population was obliged to oppose an unjust government because that government insisted on taxing that population without any pretense of representation of, or advocacy for that population. When this initial philosophical resistance was met by force of arms on the part of the government, the population countered by armed resistance. And guess what! The United States was born!

Those who say that people like me are being paranoid need to study their history. Virtually every time a government in the 20th century has visited brutal subjugation and even genocide on its own population, it has been preceded by a vigorous campaign of civilian disarmament.This is not a secret (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Mao, Pol Pot, Suharto, etc., etc.) The political realities following the 9/11 incident have served notice to all of us that our once sacred civil liberties are now on the chopping block. The logical conclusion of where this is all leading should be painfully obvious to those who have eyes to see.

Should it become necessary to oppose our "democratic" government, we had better be at least as well armed as they are. What would be the point of bringing a knife to a gunfight?
An Ep User An EP User
3 Responses Jan 13, 2013

RIGHT ON.
As the saying goes "It's not about guns, it's about control."

Well said.

What I like to say is people are giving up their liberty by their own free choice.

I would like to mention that wonderful, gun free socitety known as Great Britain does not have armed police officers. When confronted with firearms, the officers have little choice but to run and call for an armed response by those who are apparently permitted to use firearms.

You have hit the nail bang regarding the second ammendment. A few people have abused the right by not treating it with respect. Those who carelessly leave loaded firearms around children, those who can not settle differences without them, those who "accidently" fire a weapon not thinking about what is in the path of the bullet beyond the two foot radius of their world. A refusal to trample on the civil liberties of individuals who should not have to weapons. Unfortunately, the obedient media only reports. on what is beneficial to the cause of those against the second ammendment.

Again, liberty will be given up for a little, temporary security.