Saturday, June 27, 2009

Gun Control? Think Nazi Germany or Better Yet Iran!


This article was sent to me by a friend I thought it was worthy of sharing...

IRAN: THIS IS THE PRICE CITIZENS PAY FOR GUN CONTROL

The American anti-gun crowd has always made the mistake of assuming what is happening in Iran could not possibly happen in the United States. The people of 1930s Germany, a very genteel, educated and sophisticated society by all accounts, also made that same catastrophic assumption. The fact is that it can happen here for one reason and one reason alone: We are all human beings with the exact same wiring where it comes to human nature. It doesn't matter what national, racial or ethnic background a person comes from, and it doesn't matter whether the people are governed by a brutal dictator like Kim in North Korea, an Islamic regime in Iran or a Constitutional Republic like the United States, the base line for anticipating what humans are capable of anywhere is firmly established by history -- and that history proves it can happen anywhere.

No matter what historical source is used, nor how ancient or modern, the element of human nature has not changed no matter how far back one searches. Technology is the only variable, and history has proved conclusively that the element of human nature has never changed in response to technological advances.


The only reason a savage government like that of Iran can cowardly and indiscriminately order the brutal murder of citizens simply standing on a Tehran street watching a protest demonstration is because they had already systematically disarmed every common citizen on that street. The only "weapon" any of those Iranian citizens had was numbers and outrage, yet they are being beaten and murdered only because the Iranian regime knows they cannot defend themselves.

That is the ultimate price a society -- any society -- eventually pays for gun control. Why? Well, if you do study human history you will come away with the understanding that there will always be conflicts of interest between government and private individuals that will eventually lead to conflict -- because that is human nature. The government is always dependent upon the masses for its income and livelihood, which means it must extract a certain portion of the income of each private citizen to sustain itself. In order to extract that income, governments always pass laws requiring each citizen to "pay their fair share" in order for the government to do its primary job of protecting the common citizens from outside threats.


Unfortunately, governments rarely stop at national defense. Once individuals in government discover this wonderful and enforced source of income, they invariably try to expand government to provide services they hope the private citizen will want and be willing to pay for until the day comes when the government demands more than the citizens are willing to continue to pay for, and therein lie the seeds of conflict that can and will eventually lead to violence.


Tax authorities, like the IRS and federal judges who decide tax cases, have a conflict of interest when dealing with the private sector because they are paid by taxes extracted by force of law from the private sector. All law enforcement personnel are paid by taxes extracted by force of law from the private sector. So are public school teachers, public works employees, prosecutors, etc. If the individual citizen is employed in any direct way by government, there will always be an inherent and potential conflict of interest between the government citizens and private sector citizens, whether it is a comfortable balance that all seem to mutually enjoy, or an eventual imbalance that might result in conflict.


And don't forget that for every government employee who depends on the income derived from the private sector in the form of taxes, each one usually has a spouse and some children, along with parents and other relatives, sympathetic friends and those who foolishly think government can solve their every problem. When that voting block becomes large, powerful and unwieldy, it invariably votes for and passes additional and enforced taxation from private citizens who only then realize too late that they are becoming victims of a parasitic group of fellow citizens who never really had their best interests at heart to begin with. Welcome to the rule of human nature.

Now the government of Iran may not have evolved into the brutal regime it has become in exactly the same way, but it really doesn't matter when it comes to a conflict of interest where only one faction, the government, has weapons, and the other faction, the private citizens, are banned from owning them. This is specifically the reason why the Framers of our Constitution made certain the Bill of Rights included a provision that made ownership of individual small arms a fundamental right for all U.S. citizens.



This is just one reason why every decent member of Congress needs to scrutinize the judicial record of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. According to her own previous ruling as a federal judge in a firearms case, Sonia Sotomayor claimed that owning a firearm was not a fundamental right guaranteed to all U.S. citizens, and that individual states had the right to pass laws that could ban the ownership of guns by citizens living in those states!


To make matters worse, that is exactly the argument used by the Seventh Circuit in their recent ruling that the City of Chicago still had the right to bar Chicago citizens from owning handguns, even after the Supreme Court's Heller Case affirmed that the citizens of Washington DC had a fundamental right to own handguns there. Why? Well, Washington DC is not a state, so the lying logic is that while DC is a federally controlled enclave that cannot interfere with a citizen's right to keep and bear arms by the federal government, the states are not encumbered from do just that -- and Sotomayor firmly believes that.


It is such an absurd argument that anyone who claims to subscribe to it is a fool's fool, because most anti-gun-nuts are strong supporters of the First Amendment "fundamental right" to freedom of speech, and the exact same argument could be used by any state to ban free speech by its citizens as well. Such an argument could be used by states to ban freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial and every other fundamental right given to every individual citizen in the entire United States!


Just remember that the Sonia Sotomayors of the United States, who are on the federal payroll of enforced tax receipts, have an inherent conflict of interest where it comes to protecting the fundamental rights of the citizens, particularly if a certain fundamental right like the Second Amendment could be used as a last resort by the citizens to force the government to recognize and protect all their other most basic, fundamental rights.


Right now, we don't have that problem here in the United States, but you can see every night on the news that the citizens of Iran do have that problem, and they are being brutalized and slaughtered just for speaking out. The Government of Iran is doing that because they can, and if we citizens of the United States are ever similarly disarmed, it can happen here too.


Just remember this constant rule of human nature that never changes: If it can be abused; it will be abused.

Carl F. Worden

1 comment:

henrylow said...

Everyone has their favorite way of using the internet. Many of us search to find what we want, click in to a specific website, read what’s available and click out. That’s not necessarily a bad thing because it’s efficient. We learn to tune out things we don’t need and go straight for what’s essential.
This goal-oriented way of surfing the web is largely based on short-term results. For example, finding facts to write a blog post, doing a comparison before making a purchase and reading a news site to find out what’s happening right now.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com