Archived Story

We must not chip away at 2nd Amendment

Published 12:55am Sunday, April 7, 2013

A recent headline asked, “Do we really want to make the nation great?” Well, whose definition of great would that be? We ought to restore American greatness.

I don’t know anybody with an automatic assault weapon. The licensing and taxes for ownership of such weapons is designed to discourage ownership of them. I do know some people with semi-automatic rifles that can use high capacity magazines.

The 2nd Amendment in part was designed to protect the rest of the Bill of Rights from over-reach by the central government.

Today the federal government is over-reaching in many areas and infringing on the Bill of Rights: seizure of American’s property without due process because of traffic stops, laws regulating types of speech that aren’t approved by some in Washington, lots of things tucked into the Patriot Act using terrorism as an excuse and attempts to strip American citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights.

I can foresee government agents marching door to door to seize our guns. After a shooting in Australia the government passed strict gun laws. Once the Australians were disarmed, crimes such as home invasion increased because burglars had nothing to fear.

In England women aren’t even allowed to carry pepper spray when walking at night. If a person carrying a cane used it as a weapon the British have so distorted the common law that any object used as a weapon is viewed the same as carrying an illegal weapon.

Senator Diane Feinstein of California was quoted years ago as saying something to the effect that if she had the votes in Congress she’d ban all guns and there would be confiscations. Governor Cuomo of New York was recently quoted as favoring confiscations. That is the goal of people like Senator Feinstein of California. Registration is a first step. Since they can’t do it all at once they want to do it bit by bit.

Around here lots of people can say that their family is pure American or at least mostly. I would guess that the Sons of the American Revolution could have a very successful membership drive if people knew their own family histories.

More understanding of everyone’s rights? Why do foreigners have any right at all to violate our borders and break our immigration laws?

People bring their culture with them. Immigrants from similar cultures like Germany and Ireland were willing and able to integrate. We used to insist on it with pro-American classes in American history and citizenship. When people integrate they become part of the country.

Looking at the culture of modern Mexico, it isn’t a place where I’d want to live. When people live in ethnic enclaves they don’t assimilate. There are parts of California and the Southwest where it would be useful to know Spanish. Some Chicanos even have the idea of a Reconquista, taking back the southwest for Mexico.

California in the 1950s was a state Americans wanted to move to. Now they’re fleeing a sinking ship and California is having budget troubles.

We aren’t getting Mexico’s best and brightest. It isn’t Mexican professionals or Mexican business owners sneaking over our border. I’ve read that second generation Mexicans whose parents are under-educated tend to be under-educated. We’re importing cheap labor which corporations like because it depresses wages. The Republicans like what corporations like. We’re also importing new Democratic voters which the Democrats like.

Meanwhile, a majority of Americans don’t think illegals should be given citizenship. Poor Americans who may be under-educated themselves have to compete for jobs that pay depressed wages with people who have no respect for our laws, which they demonstrate by violating our border.

We didn’t start this country as we the people, we started this country as British colonists. We became a people here. We didn’t sneak across a border. There was hunger, sickness, trees to chop down, Indian attacks to survive, civilization to build and wars to be fought.

Our ancestors, some of us, paid for the land with their sweat and their blood.

I think the politicians of both parties will vote the way their campaign contributors want them to. For many of them their top concern is getting re-elected.

The Constitution is there to protect our liberties which it does not grant but recognizes and affirms. The campaign contributors might think we have too many liberties for us to be managed efficiently if we ever realize the government has been taken from us.

I think Americans should reserve the right to be well enough armed to resist tyranny. Some people say if the government wants the guns there’s nothing you can do.

Hopefully not all Americans share that attitude and will realize that they can resist and be good examples to their neighbors so that they will also resist.

Guns can’t fight tanks and aircraft is another favorite saying of those who are eager to surrender. Tell that to the Syrian government.

Joe Belcher

Ironton

The Tribune believes it is possible for people with a variety of points of view to discuss issues in a civil manner and will remove comments that, in our opinion, foster incivility. We want to encourage an open exchange of information and ideas. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. By contributing to this website, you agree not to post any defamatory, abusive, harassing, obscene, sexual, threatening or illegal material, or any other material that infringes on the ability of others to enjoy this site, or that infringes on the rights of others. Any user who feels that a contribution to this website is a violation of these terms of use is encouraged to email report-comments@irontontribune.com, or click the "report comment" link that is on all comments. We reserve the right to remove messages that violate these terms of use and we will make every effort to do so — within a reasonable time frame — if we determine that removal is necessary.

  • deist

    In an ideal world I would agree, there would be no need for guns. BUt no one has proposed any legislation to do that. Hysteria is not a debating tool for intelligent people.

    (Report comment)

  • mikehaney

    New York state police confiscate man’s guns in error. It’s already begun.

    (Report comment)

  • mikehaney

    Senator Diane Feinstein of California was quoted years ago as saying something to the effect that if she had the votes in Congress she’d ban all guns and there would be confiscations. Governor Cuomo of New York was recently quoted as favoring confiscations. That is the goal of people like Senator Feinstein of California. Registration is a first step. Since they can’t do it all at once they want to do it bit by bit.–Joe Belcher
    —————————-
    Apparently many didn’t crack their history books in school. And is a fool to think it can’t happen again.

    (Report comment)

  • deist

    If it does, it will guarantee a Dem President in 16, and help regain the House. You, as well as any Senator that would even think about a Filibuster, are on the wrong side of the Constitution and the wrong side of History.

    (Report comment)

  • mikehaney

    Filibuster a comin. I hope.

    (Report comment)

  • deist

    No civil liberty is absolute. There are limits and regulations that have been placed on all, some by Supreme Court decision and others by Congressional action. No one, absolutely no one is trying to take anyone’s guns. But the need for rational limitations is past the point of being needed to the point of dire necessity. I just finished an article that was talking about how eleven children were saved while Lanza was re-loading. How many babies have to be killed to support an unreasonable idea of what the 2nd amendment truly means?

    (Report comment)

  • bklibrary

    There are some good points here by the writer but there are also some disturbing points. One of the points “Do we really want to make the nation great?” Well, whose definition of great would that be? We ought to restore American greatness. I think the same argument can be made about the rights for the twenty six lives lost at Newtown, Conneticut including twenty children under the age of six, Aurora, Colorado and just this past few weeks several law enforcement officers including the Mingo County Sheriff eating his lunch by someone exercising their second amendment rights to take someone elses life. What rights did these folks who were murdered have? I believe in the right to bear arms I hunt and I was once a law enforcement officer. But I do believe the person with the previous article was referring to semi-automatic rifle ban instead of automatic. Who really needs thirty round clips or these type of killing machines which is what they are. I usually do not post anymore due to the fact of the ocean of un-educated responses and hardcore Fox News followers that I see posting on here. You know it takes people to learn to think anew and learn anew and I find it apalling with such rethoric from a nation that is only first in gun ownership and incarcerations of its own people we are not great anymore we are too greedy and have less empathy to be a great nation.

    (Report comment)

Editor's Picks

Local hip-hop artist to perform at SXSW

Ironton High School Class of 2011 graduate McKinley Carter, who goes by the name of Mac Carter, knew at a young age he wanted to ... Read more