- Posted January 6, 2013 by
Gun Control: Safety or Submission
I'm sure as a Marine Cpl. Joshua Boston took an oath to defend our country, he also took an oath to obey orders, but he is no longer serving and entitled to his civilian liberties. This may seem familiar to some, "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
One notable difference between the aforementioned officers, and enlisted, oath is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, even if legislation is passed to to strip us of our right to a well regulated militia, not the right to hunt, not the right to shoot targets, not the right to protect our homes and family, but the right to own these "assault weapons" they, anyone of officer rank, not only have the ability, but are bound by oath not to act upon these infringements.
Per definition a militia is a fighting force, "a military force composed of ordinary citizens...". How I question, do you compose a military style force without weapons, and ammunition supply, at least somewhat worthy of being deemed militarily useful? The AR-15 rifles available to civilians may look like the weapons you see carried by our troops, but stop at just that, looks. These weapons lack the functionality of true fully automatic machine guns, belt fed light machine guns, and true weapons mountable grenade launchers, to mention just a few. These are without debate unavailable to the public being considered militia or not, at least not on the open market.
I believe it goes without saying, being in the most militarily advanced nation, that we are not able to become a "militarized nation” with our 30 round magazines and semi-automatic AR-15 rifles. This has been mentioned in previous articles but I find it a quite laughable argument, not to mention the fact most militarized nations are oppressed and under tyrannical rule, but this is why the Second Amendment was put in place at our nations birth. What a great force to reckon with, what a great militia it would be, with all the hunting rifles and target clay shotguns.
The rights we have may be what is needed it may not that is for you to decide. Left or right does not play a role in this decision, this is about America and our freedom in this country today, to keep our rights, or to give the away to feel as though your safer, that also is for you to decide. If nothing else has been learned in the last few months except people will kill, and always have killed, other people, then you are blind to reality. All the political games throughout the fiscal cliff debates and others should make it very clear who and what Washington stands for. It's a mess and a civilian nightmare, they can't even agree on taxes, the last thing we need to let them do is start disarming us and create a list of who owns every gun. This sounds all too familiar if one is to look throughout the pages of history, it is a means to an end, one that seems optimistic and safe, yet the history books don't show this end in such a light.
Lastly, whats a good rant without some gun rights quotes.....
FIRST THE GREAT MENTOR LINCOLN...
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
-- George Washington, in a speech of January 7, 1790
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
-- John F. Kennedy
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. 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"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
-- Hitler, April 11 1942
The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms.
-- Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On
The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session
(February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5