Share this on:
 E-mail
427
VIEWS
9
COMMENTS
 
SHARES
About this iReport
  • Not verified by CNN

  • Click to view DoctorPhD's profile
    Posted December 19, 2012 by
    DoctorPhD
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Assignment
    Assignment
    This iReport is part of an assignment:
    Gun control debate: Background checks

    Gun Rights - Litmus Test for Freedom

     

    I came from Russia, where laws, inherited from former USSR, make it extremely difficult for ordinary citizens to own even smooth-bore hunting long guns, much less rifled weapons of any kind; and handguns are essentialy banned for ordinary civilians to own for all practical intents and purposes.

     

    After the collapse of the Soviet Union, I lived through the "roaring nineties", moreover, in the Northern Caucasus, ethnic and religious conflicts being perpetual routine there.

     

    One thing I learned from living through those times,- is that ANY FORM OF GUN CONTROL DOES NOT WORK.

     

    When society is sick and order is broken, laws or no laws, people take survival in their own hands, because government cannot protect them. Any Goverment cares first and foremost about its self-preservation only, in situations like this. It does not really care about you, or you children.

     

    Then I came to the United States, "the land of the free and the home of the brave". Several years ago I became a US citizen. I have been an NRA member, Concealed Handgun License Holder, and Range Security Officer for many years now.

     

    To me, the Uninfringed Right to Keep and Bear Arms symbolizes FREEDOM.


    Throughout history, of all countries, only slaves were not allowed weapons.


    The Right to keep and bear Arms - is a Litmus Test of how free a society is.

     

    My right to Bear Arms, as well as that of my fellow US citizens, is enshrined in the Constitution I took an oath to protect, against enemies foreign and domestic.

     

    Whatever the interpretation of the militia clause in the 2nd Amendment might be, the second part of it leaves no doubt as to Founding Fathers' intent: "..The Right of the PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall Not be Infringed."
    Remember, "We, the People..."? Not state, not federal government, not militia, - the PEOPLE.

     

    Notice, it says "arms", not "firearms" or "muskets".

     

    The term "Arms" here, no doubt, means any weaponry, adequate enough to repel tyrannical government's forces.

     

    Some people say that militia clause in the 2nd Amendment meant our Founding Fathers wanted people to fight State's tyrannical militia. Maybe. But I do not think so. Given the history of the Bill of Rights, I am sure they meant "MILITIA" just as it is defined, - "A body of armed civilians, in or out of a uniform, with full citizenship rights, formed to protect civil liberties." Our Founding Fathers were against a standing army. The armed citizenry was supposed to counterbalance an army of professional soldiers, mercenaries in the service of a tyrannical government.

     

    That is why, even though I am by no means rich, I went through all of the bureaucratic hurdles, and spent thousands of dollars on obtaining permits and LEGALLY purchasing items that are heavily regulated under National Firearms Act of 1934 (and other regulations) or would fall under the ruling of now defunct, but, it looks like, being reintroduced, so-called "Assault Weapons" Ban.
    That includes fully automatic sub-machine guns, Suppressors (commonly mislabeled as "silencers"), Short Barreled Rifles (SBR), and high capacity magasines, amonth others.

    What is an "Assault Weapon" anyhow? Any object can be used for assault or defence, guns included. Looks like it's a slave translation from German "SturmGewehr", a term that Hitler coined in 1944.

     

    In 1994, Clinton administration used the same terminology to introduce AWB.

    That piece of legislature, for those familiar with firearms would be just laughable, had it not be so sad due to obvious lack of any decent knowledge of firearms on the part of those,including Joe Biden, who introduced it.

    It would ban firearms based on cosmetical features such as presence of a bayonet lug. Have you heard recently about anybody being mugged at a bayonet point?

    But enough of that. It's not of principal importance.

     

    I am not a slave. I am a law abiding (however little sense some gun laws make) free citizen and a responsible gun owner in a supposedly free country.

     

    I am ready to join "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", as in a body of armed citizens, not stripped of their rights as citizens. But where is it? Does it exist? Any state National Guard is, firstly, under direct control of the Federal Government, State taking the second seat.  It is  basically, a part of the standing professional army, in which soldiers are stripped of their most important civil rights. Such as, for example, being court-martialed for an offence, by military justice system, that is an all-together separate justice system, imposing rules of its own.

     

    Let's face it folks, any government is primarily a mechanism of force and opression.

    Army, Navy, CIA, FBI, Police, Border Guards, etc.. Any Government, can, and has in this country, become a parasite. It's first instinct is self-preservation. But it's not in its interests to completely destroy the host organism, - the society, ordinary people. Otherwise there will be hardly anybody left to suck the blood out. You can think of it as a parasitic symbiosis of sorts. Government has extensive arsenal of weapons (US military budget is on average 85% of military budgets of all countries in the world combined, just picture that pie chart), including weapons of mass destruction.  Should non-existent hypothetical well-regulated militia also be armed with nuclear and chemical weapons? Not necessarily. Again, it is not in the interest of the government, at least in current statu quo, to destroy those who it feeds upon. But militia, armed even with conventional arms, can make it impossible for tyrants to continue in their usual ways; as history shows, including recent events in the North Africa and the Middle East.

     

    To conclude, here are some excellent words from Benjamin Franklin : "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

     

    I would paraphrase :
    "Those Who Sacrifice their own and other people's Liberty For False Promise and False Sence of Security, Deserve to be stripped of their American citizenship and tried for high treason."

     

    Do not be slaves.

     

    Good luck, fellow Americans. Looks like we all will need it

    What do you think of this story?

    Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
    Be and editor! Choose an option below:
      Awesome! Put this on TV! Almost! Needs work. This submission violates iReport's community guidelines.

    Comments

    Log in to comment

    iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.

    Add your Story Add your Story