Vail Daily letter: Fight fire with fire
Vail, CO, Colorado
“Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not” was an observation of Thomas Jefferson. In his day, the citizen soldiers with their long rifles were better armed than the British with their muskets, and that was the difference then between liberty and tyranny. There is a parallel between the British burdens upon the colonists of 1776 and the crushing taxation, regulation and debt imposed on the Americans of today, and that is a well-armed citizenry is necessary for the survival, security and welfare of all.
Not only is the citizens’ Second Amendment right to bear arms an inalienable and natural right, it is his solemn responsibility to avail himself of those tools in defense of his family, his neighbor, his fellow countrymen and himself.
Today, however, we hear the hue and cry from the summer soldiers and sunshine patriots on our left flank calling to eradicate evil, insanity and the tragedies of Columbine or Sandy Hook by enacting new laws, regulations, U.N. mandates or executive orders to better control law-abiding citizens in the exercise of their right.
Mind you, it is not about expunging the access of the criminals among us to such weapons, since that would be about as successful as the “war on drugs,” bailout legislation or protecting Americans in Benghazi. The administration’s goal is about control. It is the myriad of convoluted, conflicting and irrational rules and regulations by both the state and federal governments relating to the exercise by the people of the right to bear arms that put the innocents of Sandy Hook in harm’s way. Had there been but one citizen with an assault rifle or any firearm within that school on that fateful day, how many lives would have been saved?
To relegate a child’s protection and safety to only the police, would the 911 call have made a difference? I doubt it. Would you answer that call by further disarming the parents and teachers to combat the evil that invaded the confines of the school? Would you barter away the liberty and constitutionally defined rights of the citizen for a disproved anti-gun policy? Do you believe that an armed man is a citizen, and an unarmed man a subject?
Participate in The Longevity Project
The Longevity Project is an annual campaign to help educate readers about what it takes to live a long, fulfilling life in our valley. This year Kevin shares his story of hope and celebration of life with his presentation Cracked, Not Broken as we explore the critical and relevant topic of mental health.
The statistics on crime, logic and law belie the governmental calls for more restrictions on firearms in the hands of the law-abiding citizen. Yet, a governmental crony from Chicago once stated, “We should never let a good crisis go to waste,” and this is what we are now hearing from Washington. This is their time to shine, their chance to garner more control over the American people in furtherance of the march or change to socialism and subjugation. It is not about the welfare and safety of the people that these politicos have in mind.
John Adams said, “Those who trade liberty for security shall have neither.”
Free and well-armed citizens are a much better deterrent to the invasion of enemies and evil than a 911 phone call to a police station’s five- or 10-minute response.
There is a dire need for both an armed governmental agency and an equally well-armed citizenry, not only to preclude the divided or misguided loyalties of government, but to expeditiously and effectively address a crisis at the moment.
I portend that you will hear Vice President Joe Biden’s shrill and feigned outrage, calling to ban assault weapons and guns in general by private citizens. These are his marching orders from “Das Kapital,” “Mien Kampf,” “Rules for Radicals” and the Democratic National Committee. These are on his wish list to combat tragedy – like walking guns to the cartels to combat illegal drugs, or staffing the embassy in Paris with Marines rather than in Benghazi to protect Americans in harm’s way.
The criminal will always have access to an assault weapon or some like thing, either by way of the black market, trade, theft or simply walked to him by the ATF. By disadvantaging the private citizen in his ability to expeditiously meet force with force, you in effect are putting innocents at risk.
Perhaps the assault rifle of today is the long rifle of yore, and the citizen’s right to carry that tool should be equal to the government’s use and possession of such weaponry.
Can you really gainsay that it should not be available to the citizen for effective use against a deranged criminal or tyrant in occupation?