The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

This is the most basic and fundamental right necessary to insure that we're able to continue to enjoy our comfort and freedom. It sounds a bit extreme to some, but its true. Here's a few questions for you:

1. Do you feel that our government is completely honest?
2. Do your trust our government?
3. Do you feel that our government always puts our interests above its own interests?
4. Do you realize that the Revolutionary War was not a war waged by Americans against England, but rather a war waged by English citizens against their own government?

Of course, I don't know what your answers to these questions are, but I can tell you what my answers are:

1. No, I don't feel that our government is completely honest.
2. No, I don't trust our government.
3. No, I don't believe for a second that our government would put my best interests above its own. Pick a politician, any politician, and see if his quality of living is better or worse than yours. Do you know of any politician that would take a pay cut so that you could pay less in taxes? No. In fact, congress continues to vote themselfs more pay raises. Did you realize that politicians make more than the people they are supposed to represent? Why then, are they asking for more money? The answer: Because they are thinking of themselves, and not the people they are there to represent. In continuing with that line of thinking, why would I assume that they would have a change of heart suddenly, and start putting me ahead of themselves. That is corruption. They're not doing their job. They're thinking of themselves, and doing what benifits them. When they make decisions, they make them based on what will get them re-elected, not what is in the best interests of the populace, and these two are not always the same thing. (I know it sounds strange, but when I get more time, I'll place a few examples here)
4. And finally, the issue of the Revolutionary War. Everyone is taught in history class that there was this big war, and Paul Revere rode through the streets yelling, "The Red-Coats are comming!" and George Washington led rag-tag armies against the British. The problem is, its always presented like it was the United States against England. It wasn't. There was no United States. We were Brittish, and we were fighting the British government! We were fighting our own government! Why? Because the government had become so corrupt and tyrannical, that the people wouldn't stand for it anymore. Of course what is a tyrannical government going to do, to protect its own best interests? Disarm the populace. Why? Because if it pushes the people to far, it doesn't want them to be able to push back.

Given all that, think about why your government is trying to register and keep track of all privately owned guns. To thwart crime? Hardly. Crimes are commited by criminals. Criminals are, by definition, people who disreguard and break laws. So why then, would criminals obey a law that outlawed the possesion of firearms? They wouldn't. Politicians know that legislation regulating firearms doesn't have a positive effect on crime rates. In fact, there's evidence to show otherwise. Look at places where it is illegal to posess a handgun: Chicago, New York, Washington DC. What do the crime rates look like in these cities? Not to good... Do you think that limiting firearm possesion in these area's has made crime better? I don't. All that does is limit the law abiding citizen. The one that would have no intention of using that firearm for illicit purposes.

Pretend you're a criminal: You are in an area where firearm possesion is limited, perhaps even prohibited. You have a firearm. You want to rob someone. You know that his chances of being able to defend himself are slim, because he's a law abiding citizen, and he doesn't have a firearm. You have the advantage. You will get what you want. You will not be met with resistance.

Now pretend that you're in an area that does not limit firearm possession. You, again, want to rob someone. You aren't sure if he's got a firearm or not. You don't know if he'll be able to defend himself effectively. You're not certian you have an advantage. You're not sure if you'll get what you want. Worse yet, you may get injured in the process. Suddenly, there's more risk involved in this simple robbery. This, in itself, is a deterrent to crime.

So what has this encroachment on your freedom (Limiting your firearms possession) done? Has it protected you in any way? No. Has it limited your ability to defend yourself? Yes. Has it created an environment that encourages crime? You bet!

So back to my original point - Why then, would your government support this kind of activity? If its not benefiting the public, then why push for it? Two reasons:

1. Because some people have been programmed by the news media to believe that guns are bad. These people don't really think the situation through, and think that crime will go down if guns are eliminated. They don't have a gun, so these laws won't directly affect them, and as a result, these people will vote for candidates that propose more restrictions on firearms. Politicians support these measures because it helps them gain more votes. They gain more votes - they stay in office. They stay in office - they have more power. Its a self-serving issue. Again, the public's best interests were not in mind.
2. Because a disarmed public cannot keep a corrupt government in check. Again, a self-serving issue for the government. No government has ever been overthrown by an unarmed populace, has it? No. When this system of government was created, it incorporated a system of checks and balances. Three of them, you are probably already familiar with: The Executive branch, the Legislative branch, and the Judical branch. Most people forget about the fourth: The People. The government was set up to keep it's own branches and departments balanced internally, but what's to keep the government as a whole from getting out of control? We are. You and I. If we turn a blind eye to the disarming of our nation, we're not doing our jobs. We're supposed to retain our ability to keep the government in check. After all, if they're doing a good job, why should they worry? If we're satisfied with our government, what would it matter if the populace was armed or not?

That's all for now. I have a lot more to say, but it'll have to wait until I have more time to type it out. Thanks for listening, and keeping an open mind.

- Dave