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