The Daily Star
---- — Whenever I read the general position on guns similar to recent Cary Brunswick and Justin Vernold columns, the less I think it’s a genuine concern for public safety, and more an effort to demonize all firearms. With the effect of making the government all the more powerful through our complete self-disarmament.
In asking his lingering questions, Mr. Brunswick is typical of what I’m talking about. It’s never been a matter of us needing, or deserving, particular weapons. The Second Amendment reads, “ ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Could it be any clearer that the founders weren’t talking about firearms only being in police and military hands? Or that arms always mean muskets and flintlocks? Those were simply the predominant weapons of the time, as arms were swords and spears during the Roman empire. The term describes weaponry in general. And they didn’t intend this right to be conditionally infringed.
So maybe the basic question should be, why would the founders write into law something they really didn’t mean? Now as to there being another way to lessen the occurrence of mass shootings, I read an article listing some 10 between 1995 to 2009 in which the shooter was either under the influence of, or withdrawal from, psycho/therapeutic medication. A connection perhaps? And I’m afraid history shows that firearms registration isn’t confined to a certain kind. It also shows that confiscation always follows registration. Basically it’s foolish to say that since despotism isn’t happening right this moment, it won’t in the future.
Many need to understand and accept the reality that there’s never been, or will be, a government without the seeds of tyranny in it. Simply because we have that character in us.