Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------
(Richard Benert recently wrote a letter to the editor in response to Bob Chase's letter. Mr. Chase's letter first, followed by Mr. Benert's response.)
---------------
Bob Chase: When it comes to gun control I support the Second Amendment – “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 is a growing number of Americans who believe there should be stronger state militias because our nation’s leaders are irresponsible and irresponsive to the public's concerns about the economy, health care etc., but most of all liberty and freedom. Most Americans, myself included, recognize reforms are needed but the solutions coming out of Congress are influenced by corporate greed and our representatives putting their job security before good legislation.
In context of foreign invasion, someone once said, “there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass,” making invasion unlikely. But distrust of the federal government continues to plague our elected officials; it is a natural evolution for them to want more control and to use isolated events to leverage more gun control. This method of legislation is disgraceful and an unwise assault on Americans.
Maybe there could be a compromise. NACTRIM is a National Criminal Locator Database (there are many databases) that searches over 500 million criminal records from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. That’s more criminal records than there are American citizens. So when it comes to gun purchases is there something wrong if the gun retailer checks a purchasers name against a criminal database? If the purchasers name is not in the database then let the purchaser get his gun and go on his merry way. Maybe I am missing something, but it looks to me like the federal government wants a database on law-abiding citizens. Why?
Bob Chase
------------------
Richard Benert: In a recent letter (“Law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be tracked”) there occurs one of the most frightening statements I’ve ever seen on this page. According to Mr. Chase, “There is a growing number of Americans who believe there should be stronger state militias because our nation’s leaders are irresponsible and irresponsive to the publics (sic) concerns about the economy, health care etc., but most of all liberty and freedom.”
Leaving aside the question of what is meant by “liberty and freedom,” since, if it (they?) truly were under attack, I might agree with the writer. (Um, yeah. Except he did agree at one point.) The amazing thing here is the calmness with which he (and gun-loonies in general) would employ military force to resolve public policy issues. (Note the dismissive characterization: "Loonies." Note also the false equation. This is not a case of employing military force to resolve public policy issues. The military is an arm of government, and these are not public policy issues. Mr. Chase describes the way government has dealt with certain issues, then expands his focus to the larger issue of liberty. This is a case of resisting the abuse of the people by a tyrannical government. The founders threw off the British government mostly because of taxes, no representation, and injustice! They dealt with their grievances on a "public policy" level for years, then asserted that because the Crown was unresponsive, indeed, it doubled down on the tyranny, that the people were not only justified, but duty bound, to revolt.
How could they say that it is the right and duty of the people "to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security?" How abusive does a government have to get in order to justify the embrace of the founders' words? The founders, then. must be "gun loonies.".
As a matter of fact, the Left has long complained about the abuses of government. The Left has a long history of fighting against the Man, sometimes employing violence. Have they already forgotten the plight of the black man? Do they now support the Patriot Act? What about warrantless wiretapping? Are all these abuses of freedom now inconsequential? Why does Mr Benert overlook the long train of abuses which the Left revolted against?)
Mr. Benert appears to simply intend to impugn Mr. Chase as an outlier, an extremist, a lone voice. However, Mr. Chase appears to be in good company.) Mr. Chase, please be notified that the U.S. Constitution, which you good militiamen supposedly adore, was painstakingly devised precisely to deal with these issues — without bloodshed. (Um, no it wasn't. The Constitution was written to create, define, and limit government. The government largely ignores the provisions that limit it, which has led to the aforementioned abuses.)
Also, look carefully at article 1, section 8, of this document. It gives Congress the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militias. State-appointed officers could train them “according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” It’s hard to reconcile this with the idea that the Second Amendment gives state militias the right to wage war on Congress, let alone that it places our freedom in the hands of rag-tag gangs of insurrectionists. (So we we have a Leftist, while mocking Mr. Chase's love of the Constitution, citing a provision of a document he himself disdains. It seems that Leftists only cite the constitution when it bolsters their cause, then mock it as an ancient document that couldn't anticipate our modern era.
Anyway, state militias as originally conceived were made up of every able bodied man, and the states were sovereign entities responsible for their own security. The Declaration demonstrates this: "That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent
States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and
that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is
and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they
have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish
Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of
right do."
Notice the plural tense. The Declaration treated the states as individual entities, and the constitution honored that understanding. The Constitution takes these state militias and draws them together for times when the common defense needs to be executed on behalf of the several states.)
Mr. Chase does recognize the damaging influence of “corporate greed” over congressional “solutions.” Right on, Mr. Chase. But you would wage war on the only public structure we have that’s big enough to control these corporations? What would you put in its place? (Why is it ridiculous for Mr. Chase but not the founders? If the government is oppressive and tyrannical, why should it be retained? Further, if the main recommending feature of government is to restrain corporations [which is hardly true anyway], then how good of a job is government doing right now? After, all, if you get Leftists talking about corporations, it will take maybe ten seconds for them to start complaining about their greed and how eeeevil they are. It seems that whenever the Left talks about issues, they always seem to think that nothing has been done up til now, so we need laws to reel in these greedy CEO because apparently there are no laws now.
Anyway, if the principle is true that the people have a right to throw off tyrannical government, then it's not relevant to that right. It doesn't matter what would replace it. However, those who would overthrow a tyrannical government get to install the new government, and since tyranny was the reason, it is doubtful that another flavor of tyranny would be acceptable.) Very likely the military dictatorship you create would quickly be absorbed by these corporations, putting us in a fine fascistic fix. (Interesting that Mr. Benert looks for the very worst that could happen. But more interestingly, he describes a replacement government which is by and large exactly what we have now: a fascistic government controlled by corporations. And we need to note with irony that he argued for more government/corporate partnerships here.) Why not give the Constitution a chance? (Irony is often lost on the ironic. He, like most Leftists, have little regard for constitution. It is an impediment. It's prevents government from doing good things, It places too much trust in the people to govern themselves. The constitution is hated by the Left.) You know, things like public campaign financing, congressional reform, ending Washington’s revolving door, etc.? You know, civil solutions befitting civilized people. (Sigh. His list of things to be solved has nothing to do with honoring the constitution. In fact, the constitution would have to be amended in order to implement some of these things.)
Richard Benert
No comments:
Post a Comment