The Second Amendment is the guarantee of freedom
Andrew P. Napolitano
The Washington Times
1/10/2013
…The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.
We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.
The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.
Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.
Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?
Read the entire editorial at The Washington Times.
Related: Cincy TV News Calls Out Piers Morgan’s False Anti-Gun Stats
…According to FBI crime stats for 2011, there were 12,664 homicides in the U.S. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms. But of those, 400 are listed as justifiable homicide by law enforcement. 260 were justifiable homicides by private citizens.
On the other hand, it is true that percentage-wise Britain has a lower gun homicide rate. With a population of 62.6 million, Great Britain saw 59 gun-related homicides in 2011.
Still, not the 35 that Piers Morgan keeps citing.
But it shouldn’t be surprising that the gun homicide rate in a country that bans guns would be lower than in a country where guns are not banned. Where the argument falls apart is when you attempt to claim that fewer guns equals less crime.
The U.S. has the highest gun ownership rate in the world. An average of 88 guns per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership.
Yemen is second with 54.8 guns per 100 people.
So that means the U.S. has the highest gun murder rate as well, right?
Well, no…
And, The guy who wants to grab your guns will be protected for life by men with guns, on your dime
…President Barack Obama signed a bill into law on Thursday guaranteeing himself Secret Service protection for the rest of his life…
Does that mean his life is worth more than yours?
Biden to recommend universal background checks, federal database on gun-related deaths
NRA says meeting with Biden was ‘disappointing’
Krauthammer: ‘Unconstitutional’ gun confiscation ‘would cause insurrection in the country’
Update: NRA reports that meeting with Biden’s force focused on proposed restrictions
