Thursday, August 6, 2009

. . . from any who might attempt to abuse them . . .

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
--George Washington

Posting this in a comment from my last post stirred up a thought process. Currently, the UN (United Neanderthals) is working on an international "convention" that seeks to alter the entire framework of American gun ownership, and it in essence takes away our status as a sovereign nation. You can read it here. I believe that these are some of the people George Washington was referring to.

Below is an excerpt from the introduction. What's amazing is that they don't realize how contradictory their words are.

"RECOGNIZING that states have developed different cultural and historical uses for firearms, and that the purpose of enhancing international cooperation to eradicate illicit transnational trafficking in firearms is not intended to discourage or diminish lawful leisure or recreational activities such as travel or tourism for sport shooting, hunting, and other forms of lawful ownership and use recognized by the States Parties;

RECALLING that States Parties have their respective domestic laws and regulations in the areas of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials, and recognizing that this Convention does not commit States Parties to enact legislation or regulations pertaining to firearms ownership, possession, or trade of a wholly domestic character, and recognizing that States Parties will apply their respective laws and regulations in a manner consistent with this Convention;

REAFFIRMING the principles of sovereignty, nonintervention, and the juridical equality of states,"

Excuse me, but if you are "reaffirming the principles of sovereignty, . . ." then maybe you should get away from creating a set of laws which bypass the very principles you claim to reaffirm!

In part of their purpose statement for this convention, they say this:
"to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials;"

First off, apparently they don't get it, but the people who are illicitly manufacturing and trafficking these things aren't going to care a bit about another law telling them they can't do it. THEY ARE CRIMINALS!!!
Oh, Wait, I think I just figured out how they can accomplish their goal . . . they should just kill everybody and then commit suicide. You can't have illicit arms deals happening if no one is around to make the deals. Goodness, they should have asked me sooner. I could have saved them a lot of time writing the stupid document.

Seriously, now. All this does is put laws on the book the bypass our sovereignty and make it harder for those of us who don't break the law to legally own firearms. Now, here's what we can do about it; In order for this "convention" to be ratified by the United States, it has to get a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate. The House does not vote on it. We need to be writing and possibly even calling our senators and voicing our disapproval of this measure. Personally, this is important enough to me that I'm going to let them know that if they support it, I will become their personal enemy with my resources doing all I can to put them out of a job. Here's where to get in touch with your Reps.


mikeb302000 said...

Matt, It looks like you've got a good blog going here. I thought it was more about "freedom" than guns, but then I read your sidebar explanation that the two are tightly related. Do you think they're dependent on each other, freedom on guns?

I found you site from Mike W.'s place. He's another one I like very much.

Matt said...

Thanks, and yes, I believe very strongly that freedom relies on guns. Not just having them, though, but the will to use them for defense. The Brits didn't have the will 10 years ago, which is why they don't truly have their freedom anymore. Their best option to fight back an increasingly tyrannical government has been taken from them.

The only reason we are not still British colonies is that the colonists in 1776 had guns and the will to use them.

In this post, I believe that the bigger threat to freedom is by the removal of our sovereignty as written into this convention. The fact that it comes as an attack on the second amendment makes it worse, because that is the freedom which protects all others.

Mike W. said...

I don't think freedom itself necessarily relies on firearms per se. They are an important facet of it, but it does much deeper than access to tools. Freedom relies on the willingness and fortitude of the people. A people resigned to wear their chaines will wear them whether they have guns or not. Much like a broken slave or captive won't flee or resist if his will has been broken over time.

Firearms certainly enable the defense of freedom, but if the fire of liberty isn't burning inside you then having a gun is a moot point.

I am reminded of Judge Learned Hand, who wrote

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."

I would add to his quote that under such circumstances a gun is unlikely to save it either.

Actually, I think this post explains that concept in further detail, though the overall topic is that of armed revolution.

Man, I kind of feel cheap linking to my own blog post.

Matt said...

Mike, thanks for expounding my thoughts. I said a similar thing in a comment on the new shooter post.

Guns in an of themselves cannot do anything to preserve liberty. They are inanimate objects, and cannot preserve liberty of their own will any more that a gun can kill by it's own will. The people have to have a spirit of resistance, that is, a will to fight. A gun is simply the most effective tool for those people to use in the preservation of liberty.

mikeb302000 said...

Matt said, "A gun is simply the most effective tool for those people to use in the preservation of liberty."

That reminds me of what I always say, but instead of "in the preservation of liberty," I say "who want to kill others."

Matt said...

Mikeb, your words have a point. There has to be a desire to do something. For a criminal, that could be kill. For me, it's to defend life rather than to take it (yes, sometimes defense of life comes through taking another. I do not believe it is wrong to stop someone who is determined to kill by use of deadly force. It is wrong to use deadly force without a threat.)

In the preservation of liberty, there is not the desire to kill. Most people I know who want to defend freedom hope and pray that it does not come down to shots being fired. That's why we work to change things through the exercise of our first amendment rights. The founders, however, created the second amendment as the bite behind the bark. They had spoken against the Brits who responded with force, so the colonists used their bite. Look at quotes from the founders. Firearms have always been their plan as a last resort to tyranny. (emphasis on last resort. That's why we aren't shooting now.)