Dear Americans! Stop Taking the Second Amendment for Granted

DIGG THIS

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There has been a serious debate in this country over the right to bear arms, which the constitution lays out unambiguously in its Second Amendment. The visionaries who founded this great country of ours had the foresight to grant our citizens the means to protect their loved ones and their worldly possessions in time of need. However, with the advancement of the Socialist Propaganda during the last century, proponents of an empowered state and a powerless populace have muddled the second amendment by attaching to it unnecessary ambiguities. Legislations have been passed, books have been written and documentaries have been produced to rid the Americans of those damn guns. But, opponents and proponents alike must look at this recent court case from India to get a glimpse of things to follow once Americans lose their right to bear arms.

Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt has been sentenced to 6 years of rigorous imprisonment for possessing an AK-56 assault rifle and a 9mm handgun. The actor obtained the firearms through his mob connections after the Mumbai riots of 1993 to protect his family from Hindu and Muslim extremists, since his father is a Hindu and his mother is a Muslim. As the threat towards his family was mitigated, he destroyed the weapons with the help of his associates. However, the police got a wind of this incident and Sanjay Dutt was arrested and charged for the possession of "illegal weapons."

The concept of protecting ones family does not exist according to the Indian constitution. Only the privileged few with good political connections can manage to get state-authorized firearms. Furthermore, such weapons come with strings attached. To put it in a nutshell, the Indian government does not allow its citizens to bear firearms and expects them to call the Police when under threat.

Until recently when private telecommunication firms flooded the Indian market with cellular phones, an ordinary person was at the mercy of a government telephone monopoly that took ages to install a landline which would work only on the days the peacock would spread its feathers. Even if a poor person whose family was being robbed and murdered managed to find a telephone, the odds were high that it wouldn't be working. Let's assume that that our man in distress somehow managed to get hold of the Police, what do you think is the average response time of Police in India? With the poor condition of state-maintained roads in India, you would be lucky if the Police would show up in a remotely located village by the next day.

What can people do when their loved ones or their property are under threat? Call the police and wait for them to show up the next day, and give in to the invader's tyranny for the mean time or gather up the remainder of their dignity, load their guns and defend their domain. Americans must be grateful that their constitution gives them the right to defend their dignity instead of succumbing to a tyrant's desires.

Six years for defending your family is what a person with all the wealth and connections would get in India. A front-page headline and the society's honor is what an American would get for exercising his or her constitutional freedom. The right to bear arms is something that our society has been taking for granted as it turns a blind eye towards a state that has been slowly but steadily marching towards a Socialist model where the only people who would be able to defend themselves would be in the Government and its paramilitary forces.

In 1994, the fascist Republocrats in D.C managed to ban certain weapons for the general public and hence allowing the thugs and the gangsters who are not held back by any law or legislation, the access to weapons that good law-abiding citizens would keep their hands off. In 2004, even our conservative Dear Leader George W. Bush promised to sign a renewal of the ban as espoused by the California Liberal Senator Diane Fienstein if it reached his desk. No wonder! our Mr. Passionate Conservative President could not find his "veto pen" for all those years when he approved unconstitutional aggression both domestic and overseas, uncontrolled government spending, illegal oversight of private communication, and operation of illegal overseas detention centers along with god knows what else. Should you be surprised that the guy who did all this to our republican form of government was more than willing to take away our last means of self-defense? Shove this in Ann Coulter's face.

The Sanjay Dutt case is an excellent portrayal of things to come once we give up our right to self-defense. Once people won't be able to possess firearms to defend themselves and their loved ones, their possession alone would be a serious felony that would land loving fathers and brothers in jail for several years for upholding their responsibility to defend the ones they love the most.

The people who advocate against private possession of firearms are the same people who advocate for stringent regulation of private enterprise, higher taxes, public education/indoctrination and state-sponsored healthcare etc. Their fellow Marxists like Michael Moore may add ambiguity to the issue by claiming to be a member of the National Rifle Association, but then tell you that the founding fathers wanted you to have a gun so that you can go hunting. Did the founding fathers forget to let you have a fishing rod so that you can go fishing?

The debate on the Second Amendment will go on as long as the last Marxist will roam this land of ours. In the meantime we must not forget that while the Constitution blesses us with the right to defend ourselves and our loved ones against those who invade our domain, its main objective is to grant the American citizenry the right to and the means to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Do not forget that the Constitution also grants Americans the right to abstain from owning a firearm. So, if you agree with Michael Moore that guns are a bad investment unless they are for hunting then you have the Constitutional right to avoid possessing a firearm.

The recent rapes and murders of two daughters and their mother along with the brutal beating of their father in Connecticut will be a common-place event once armed thugs undeterred by anti-gun laws have the immunity to enter you home and do this to your family. And if you feel even slightly responsible as Mr. Dutt felt while Muslims and Hindus were slaughtering each other on the streets of Mumbai in 1993, you may end up in prison for several years. The government does not want you to be responsible. The government wants you to dial 911 and wait for 30 minutes for help to arrive, and allow you the strength and agony to watch your loved ones raped, brutalized and murdered right in front of your eyes. The government wants your children to duck under desks as their classrooms are stormed by a lifeless scumbag with semi-automatic handguns. Think America! Think again before you take the Second Amendment for granted.

August 3, 2007