Just a thought and an opinion. Happy to strike it if needed.
The Second Amendment was enacted because our founding fathers did not trust the ability of men to refrain from seeking power and seeking to silence the agency of their countrymen. They feared the rise of a king and they feared the nation they had fought becoming a nation of the governed rather than a nation that governed itself. They knew that an armed populace was the only sure deterrent to tyranny.
A people that willingly hands in its agency, that desires a caretaker to make its decisions for it; a people that does not want to govern itself or is unwilling to accept the responsibility for itself but seeks for a government to rule it and to provide for it; is such a people still deserving of the Constitution its forebears enacted to preserve that people's dignity, honor, and freedom?
It is understandable that politicians might try to disarm the public. That is the nature of politicians. However, can there be sympathy for a people that are willing to be disarmed and that voice their support of turning their arms over to gradual tyranny? Has the nature of men changed that much since 1787? Are all who govern now no longer interested in power? Are they all so trustworthy to guard our basic freedoms and liberties that we can and ought to give them free rein? Is the Second Amendment no longer needed?
I am a student of modern Chinese history. The Chinese Communist Party's initial popularity came about through promises to provide for the people. To take from the rich and distribute to the poor. It gained support in the countryside by sowing hatred and dehumanizing the upper class and by exhorting class warfare. Once its victory, made possible in large part by poor armed farmers, was complete, one of the first courses of action it undertook was to systemically and completely disarm the population. There was no egalitarian society that was promised. It was not in the nature of the ruling class to enact that vision. There was no meaningful voice of the people. Instead, at the whims of it rulers, the people were subjected to one political campaign after another that cost them tens of millions of lives. There was, at that point, no recourse. There were likewise none of the constitutionally mandated freedoms available--religion, speech, etc. Yes, China's constitution promises many of the same freedoms that ours does, but the party has no incentive to allow those promises to be fulfilled. It has become a meaningless document.
If such legislation as is being proposed my Ms. Feinstein passes, is publicly supported, and is upheld by the US Supreme Court, then I greatly fear for the course of our nation. I fear the rise of an even more powerful central government. Mostly, I fear that we would collectively deserve it.
That's enough of my ranting. Happy New Year <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
