Here is a post I made in response to an invitation for my thoughts on facebook. you can find the text here leadign up to it: https://www.facebook.com/Undrstm8ed/posts/384892081586297?comment_id=2722736
“I am actually uniquely qualified to address both sides of the aisle I THINK, on this topic, and I appreciate the mention, Jamie Metzger. To address the base “concern”: I tend to be a bit of an “eye-roller” when it comes to fantastical views without real factual historical basis. Now…that said, I can also appreciate where SOME of the worriers are getting their worry in this matter. They see some policies bordering on socialistic or promoting less individual freedom in exchange for more governmental control happening in this country. Immediately, those who DO believe that, begin to wonder if some of the more basic rights and liberties assured by the constitution might come onto the radar. In some socialistic societies, gun control has featured prominently. I’m not making a determination as to whether we are moving to a more socialistic society or even further than that, the reader can decide for themselves. The problem with both sides of the argument is that the other side has valid and provable points; this is not a cut and dry issue.
For example: the UN ATT (Arms trade treaty) was knocked back by GW Bush, but Hillary Clinton, and now Barack Obama, have decided it is important to look at; ONLY in the second term. That raises flags on the conservative side of the argument. Simultaneously, the liberal side of the argument can point to the fact that Barack Obama has done nothing negative to the gun industry tacitly. He has in fact been a boon to the industry with sales going through the roof.
Conspiracy theorists look at heavy ammunition purchases by the DHS (Homeland security) like the 450million round purchase earlier in 2012, and take that and run with it. I laugh at them, because purchases like this are actually quite routine.
Unfortunately, conspiracy theorists have reasons to be concerned, like the well documented Katrina gun grabs.
SO as you see, the points are both valid, but it’s not as cut and dry as one side or the other might hope for or view it as.
As for the second amendment. It is not about hunting. It is about protection of the liberty of the people, if a Government gone bad scenario were to happen. At the point in which a government seeks to circumvent its own rules of governance, and threatens the security or freedoms of the people at large, the people have the right (but not necessarily the overt responsibility) to protect those rights, according to our founders as: “God given”. Furthermore: military style firearms are the basis for 95% of all consumer firearms, if you look back on the manufacturing timeline. At one point, our military arms were sticks and stones, slings and arrows, muzzleloaders and muskets, bolt action rifles and primitive mortars. In this modern military era, there is an overlap between consumer availability and military availability, but the second amendment in essence protects that. The 2nd, was written to allow the people to match the military in capability, not in usage on a day to day basis. IF a government were to “wage war” on the people, the people need to be able to match their capability within reason. Private citizens cannot get their hands on c4 explosives or laser guided munitions, the people, would never be able to match an army with those types of items, but the people do outnumber the military, and that is the great equalizer. The guns mean very little in that context, as the second amendment purposefully intended them to. The people must be equally armed as individuals comparatively to the individual soldiers they would come up against, in a “fight”.
One might be able to argue that talks of succession or fears about guns being taken away are premature, without merit and ridiculous; on the surface they might be right (I might even agree with that argument)…but remember, it is through small and simple means that great things are achieved.
Take away gun ads from television; blame guns for deaths rather than criminals, take away certain features from guns in certain states, what is next?
If one side gives in to the other even a little bit, momentum can be achieved and other more drastic concerns might surface.
DO I think this concern is premature? Yes. The environment is not right for a wide scale “gun grab”, but that doesn’t mean that 15 months or 36 months down the road with the right/wrong events, that such a thing is implausible. I tend to slap the hands of the extremists on my VERY PRO GUN website, because I don’t appreciate the ridiculous fear mongering, but that doesn’t mean I don’t address concerns of my vast readership. It doesn’t mean that I too, do not worry if other more drastic things are being set up to enact such an environment where we could effectively lose the second amendment rights that this country was founded upon.
The First amendment gives us the rights we enjoy; the second amendment ensures we have the power to keep those rights. At what point should the gun people get worried? After it’s too late? After guns are taken away? After the government gets into gun fights with private law abiding citizens? We need a solution to these concerns before it gets there. Discussion and communication are what is important. Both sides need room at the table for the other and must enter with the potential for flexibility, but not under false pretenses, under real threat of loss of freedoms.
To hear viewpoints is not “dangerous” unless you truly aren’t settled on your own already. I know my limits, and that is why I CAN communicate with both sides of the argument to try to effect a change.”