Picture this scenario:A natural disaster occurs and devastates an entire state. Thousands of people leave before conditions get worse and thousands more have no choice but to remain. Many of those thousands that left were law enforcement officers and what remains is broken and authority becomes non existent, sending the entire state into chaos causing the governor to implement martial law to suppress looting and other criminal behavior.
Much of the population are business owners and have no choice but to arm themselves for protection. Law enforcement is virtually non-existent and the national guard can't be everywhere all time. Those who dare to venture outside do so at their peril. Those who remain indoors and own guns use them for protection. But, their second amendment rights are violated and they are forced to turn them over, making the population more vulnerable to the rampant crime in a devastated state.
I've been stewing on this for a couple of days and I have concluded that Bill O'Reilly's February 18th discussion with a group called the Oath Keepers is over the top. Before I continue, please take a moment to watch the clip below and do your best not to vomit when you hear Mark Potok.
What O'Reilly doesn't seem to understand is that, whether or not a governor declares a state of emergency, it still violates the second amendment when law abiding gun owners are forced to turn their firearms in or they get confiscated. To O'Reilly, this is an "extreme position..."
No, it's not. What is extreme are law abiding citizens having their firearms confiscated because of a natural disaster, which is the time when they would need them most; a criminal isn't about to hand their weapons over to authorities and they sure as Hell aren't going to have them taken. Many of the law enforcement officers in New Orleans fled the state, leaving that city in utter chaos. Where does that leave law abiding citizens?
Yes, the national guard was called in, but, they couldn't be everywhere all the time and much of what they were doing were rescue operations. How else would citizens protect themselves? A shout can only be heard by someone who can help, a hammer on a handgun being eared back, or the infamous pumping sound of a shotgun slide makes a deafening sound that everyone knows and understands.
I would have thought Bill O'Reilly would have understood this, being that he is a historian. Perhaps he can recall this statement from President George Washington:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
Yeah, Bill. It is an extreme position, not by the person you interviewed, but yours.
I agree with the statement that since Bill is a historian that he should know better. If there were those who were breaking the law with guns yes take them away from them and throw them in jail. But what is disturbing is that anyone who does not like guns or gunowners automaticly wanting to confiscate them from lawabiding citizens. His is the extreame position. It is interesting to me that otherwise smart people can't understand a simple definition. Criminal means lawbreaker. law a biding means obeys the laws. It is not the law a biding that anyone needs to fear in a national emergency, it turns out the one most to fear is the government.
ReplyDelete