Thursday, November 6, 2008

A Voice Of Concern

Travis H. a friend and retired Physician from Springfield, IL share his concerns and worries about the future of his 2nd amendment rights.
We Lost The War
With major losses in congress and executive offices, including the presidency, we now have some major changes in our future. Creeping socialism finally has a secure toe in the door and we can expect our individual and collective freedoms to deteriorate and perhaps, in time, disappear altogether. There will be token choices, of course, but as a nation, we have chosen to sacrifice freedom in the hope of security - thereby insuring the loss of both freedom and security.

The "Robin Hood" style redistribution of the nation's wealth will destroy incentive as it has in other nations who've fallen victim to the false promises of socialism/communism. If we think we've seen corruption in the past, we have our head in the sand. Corruption under a socialized system of government - which is where we're headed - has free reign to proliferate like weeds in an unattended garden. We know what happened to Soviet Russia. Corrupt Communism lead to the eventual downfall of a powerful, massive people. They were not prepared since historically they had never experienced any form of democratic government - corruption was a way of life in Russia and rest of the union.

It may be too late to correct the errors that we have voted into power - especially in our pending loss of guns in the household. One of the earliest - if not the earliest - examples of gun control occurred in Japan on Aug 29, 1588, when a peasant who rose to power banned the possession of swords and firearms by anyone other than the noble class. He was Hideyoshi - later changed to the aristocratic name of Toyotomi. His edict was carried out by the samurai who went door to door and took possession of all firearms other than those belonging to the nobility. He did this under the guise of collecting metal to provide nails and bolts for a temple to house a statue of Buddha. In fact, the metal was used to build a statue of himself. His actual motives for disarming the peasantry was to insure that there would be no resistance to his plans for taxation of the peasantry. In the book, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy, author David Kopel states, "The inferior status of the peasantry having been affirmed by civil disarmament, the samurai enjoyed kiri-sute gomen, permission to kill and depart. Any disrespectful member of the lower class could be executed by a samurai's sword."

The principle of the foregoing is clear, conform or suffer the consequences. If we give up our guns, we will be powerless to prevent the existing government(s) from exerting any form of control over our lives that they choose. Our second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, clearly states that an armed militia is - well let's use the original wording, "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."

What is a militia? It is not the National Guard. When the Second Amendment was ratified by the members of the United States, the war of independence was over. The purpose for the militia was to provide a military force independent of the government that would serve to protect the citizens from any oppressive form of government such as the ones that had forced those people to leave other countries, including England. We must not be mislead into thinking that the National Guard is a state-operated equivalent of a militia. On the contrary, the guard is a federally funded and controlled arm of the federal government. It is ready to do the bidding of those in control of our lives.

It is not too late. But we must understand the danger of disarmament. From disarmament to enslavement is a short step for those who "know what is best for us."

Respectfully submitted,
Steve, a friend of Travis' also passed his concern.

Thank you, Travis.
If I may add a quote from the president-elect himself, exactly what you have written becomes more abundantly clear. And frightening:

In a July 2nd speech in Colorado Springs;

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” he said Wednesday. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

Up is down and down is up.
"This was slipped into a speech addressing public service, and I’m going to have to confess that I’m dumbfounded. What in the world is he proposing? A non-military security force that is funded the same as the miltary? What are their powers and why are civilians being put in charge of national security? Why shouldn’t we rely on our military to achieve national security objective? Isn’t that’s the whole reason for having a military. This needs some serious explaining. Any new government organization comparable in size and funding to the military would need explaining, but a civilian national security force is radical and illogical."

No comments: