Leave it to mom to start a controversy.

My mother believes herself to be a good conservative. She's a strong faithful Christian and votes right along party lines. She is, however quite sheltered on some issues. Guns are but one. Now she has brought up a subject on my site that must be addressed. I really wished it had been brought up by some strange "left of Hilary" moonbat but no....It has to be my mother. I think this is all quite unfair because I can't let loose with both barrels like I want to and still be invited for Sunday Dinner. But I believe the second amendment alone keeps all the others safely in their place in the Bill of Rights, and deserves a defense, even against dear ol' mom. I shall strive to be direct without being offensive. I shall strive for brevity. Here goes.

My mother went into a local gun shop with me the other day while I bought a new Blackhawk CQC carbon fiber Serpa retention Paddle holster (oh yeah, it was sweeeet). Anyway this shop is lined from wall to wall with well over a million dollars worth of inventory, and one of the few in town where behind the counters, work true experts. Now keep in mind, my mother knows absolutely nothing of guns. She was, however, able to very skilfully point out which ones looked like "Army" guns and which ones looked like "Cowboy" guns, but that, I assure you is where her expertise ended. She then voiced her "opinion" aloud (which is her right, though I must say it was a poor choice of venues) that only the Military and Police should be able to have such weapons as the "Army Gun" she pointed out (an AR-15 pictured below.)


Perhaps she would find the rifle below less menacing:



Yet anyone who knows anything about guns knows the rifle above is a Ruger mini 14. It fires the same .223 cal projectile, is semi-automatic and is capable of the same performance as the AR-15. It just doesn't "look" as mean with it's clean wooden stock and traditional iron sites instead of the carbon fiber pistol grip stock and carry handle of the AR. My point is she, my mother, was intimidated by the appearance of these guns and therefore catagorized them as unsuitable (not based on education but on "feeling") for the average citizen. (A very liberal point of view) It was just this sort of view which lobbied for the Assault Rifle Ban that was enacted in 1994 under Clinton. The most ridiculous piece of feel good legislation ever passed which solved absolutely nothing. Why? She kept asking. Why would you need such a gun? Because it is my right. No other reason is needed. Yet I tried to explain the practicality of such a weapon as a varmint rifle (do an image search on google for "varmint rifle" and you'll get back mostly pics of AR-15's) , and that not only is it a very common site on ranches for defense against coyotes and such but that people actually do hunt with these fine rifles. Most people merely plink or shoot targets . (They are very fun to shoot.) Many people collect firearms. Whatever the reason, there need not be a reason, and why or how many guns I happen to own is no ones business especially the Government's.

Madison and the other authors of the constitution never intended for citizens to be outgunned by the government but to be able to defend themselves from not only criminals but also from tyranny. (Some would argue emphasis on tryanny) They did however recognize that to remain free, the nation needed to be protected by an army and that army needed to be well armed. Since the army was always the enforcement tool of the tyrannical king, Madison knew that as long as the citizens could take up arms and protect themselves, tyranny could never again rear its ugly head.Tyranny cannot prevail in an armed society. Look at the first four amendments and interpret it in context.

1- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

2- 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.

3- No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Look where it is. Sandwiched right between our right to speak out against the government (1) and our right to refuse the government entry into our homes (3, and 4). What other way is there to protect the first, third and fourth amendments except with the establishment of the second? Our founding fathers surely intended for us to be a well armed society. Being armed makes us citizens instead of subjects. It assures us that our government will always be of, for, and by the people. I recently read on another site that if one word was inserted into the second amendment it would all make much better sense. But they didn't talk that way back then so it was left out. The word is "Because".

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (In other words: "We don't like big strong armies, because they have been our oppressors. But we concede that to be free we must have one. Therefore, to keep the army on the task of defending the nation and prevent it's use as a tool of tyranny, the right of the citizens to arm themselves shall in no way be infringed.)

My mother also noticed a "sniper" rifle. Oooooooo. "Sniper". It sounds so deadly. Forget the fact that these guns fire .308, .300 WinMag, .30-06 and other calibers that are commonly, and I mean VERY COMMONLY used in hunting. (The first "snipers" ever used in military service were in fact hunters.) So what's the difference between a sniper rifle and a hunting rifle? The sniper rifle is highly customized and specially built to within microscopic tolerances for the sniper who will employ it. Truth be told none of the rifles there were specially built for any "one" person and therefore would probably be better classified as a "hunting" rifle. But all this is of no consequence. Explaining the practical need for a gun to someone who does not like guns is like banging your head against the wall.

So I'll leave my argument at this. A right not exercised is a right forfeited. You may choose to forfeit that right. But it is a very liberal and shallow position that automatically criminalizes someone for owning a gun that is too big for YOUR comfort. If you have to ask why I fear the government or the citizen who promotes a government that fears or is suspicious of my gun, then no matter the choice of words, I'll probably never make you understand.

Would you be comfortable putting a sign in your front yard that said "There are no guns in this house"? Probably not. Why not? Because you would want a criminal to think twice before entering your home that just maybe, there is an armed citizen inside who stands ready to defend his life and property, and you certainly wouldn't want to advertise the fact that you have NO defense against such an intruder... So if the impression that you MAY have a gun is desirable under those circumstances, would not ACTUALLY HAVING a gun be all the more desirable?

To allow the government the power to say who may own weapons and what types of weapons they may own, sets a terrible precedent that only leads to more stringent laws that will soon push weapons out of the hands of the citizen all together. Regulation always preceeds confiscation. It's already happened in Australia, Great Britain, Germany and it continues its push across the new world order. I choose not to be a part of that NWO.