- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up

Youngstown


Residential
3 bedroom, 3 bath
$109000


Boardman


Residential
4 bedroom, 5 bath
$376000


Columbiana


Residential
4 bedroom, 4 bath
$350000


- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home


Right to bear arms sacred


Published: Sun, February 3, 2013 @ 12:00 a.m.

President Obama has called for more restrictions on the possession of firearms in spite of the fact that guns did not commit the Newtown massacre, Adam Lanza did. The chief purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee that well-armed citizens might enjoy some degree of parity with a powerful, central government or with foreign invaders. To our Founders, the notion that individual citizens had access to modern weapons was a strong deterrent to the government infringing upon constitutionally protected liberty. This continues to be the primary purpose of the right to keep and bear arms. Of course personal defense and the freedom to hunt with firearms are also important, secondary purposes.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote, “... in a constitutional government the fighting-men have the supreme power, and those who possess arms are the citizens.” He also wrote that tyrants mistrust the people “... and therefore deprive them of their arms.”

Of course, Aristotle was writing of swords, bows, and spears, which were the state-of-the-art weapons of his time. Today modern weapons, at a minimum, consist of handguns and semi-automatic rifles with large magazines.

This ancient Greek idea articulated by Aristotle exists today in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, a document specifically designed to limit the power of central government in order to preserve the liberty of the people.

The Communist paper Peoples World, announced that it agrees with this anti-gun-rights frenzy. We should remember that the Communist Party disarmed its own Russian citizens when it took over, right before they massacred them or starved them to death.

The National Rifle Association transformed from a marksmanship training organization into a civil rights organization to defend gun rights from similar attacks, such as the gun bans for African-Americans contained in the post-Civil War “Black Codes.” As recently as 1946, the NRA granted charters to African-Americans in the South who sought to defend themselves from KKK violence. The NRA also defended immigrant groups from anti-gun efforts in the 1920s, when the Progressive Movement was again on the attack, targeting African-Americans, Catholics, and immigrants.

Tragedies like Sandy Hook are only excuses to accomplish the aims of those who would restrict the right to keep and bear arms. The true causes of Sandy Hook and like incidents are being ignored by liberals. These anti-gun critics see American citizens as untrustworthy, as President Obama remarked in 2008: “...it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion…”

Most modern liberals scoff at the idea that citizens need effective firearms to ward off some imagined future government tyranny or foreign invasion. However, Democratic Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey disagreed, and said so in 1960: “... the right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”

Keeping and bearing arms in this context means, at a minimum, possessing handguns and semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines, because those are what would be needed today to defend liberty if the “tyranny which now appears remote”, as Sen. Humphrey put it, should ever, God forbid, appear.

James Denney, a local attorney, is writing on behalf of the Mahoning County Republican Party.


Comments

1ConservativeDude(36 comments)posted 1 year, 8 months ago

Mr. Denny you are so right on. If people would take a minute to closely observe what our current President is doing it would not be hard to figure out what he is up to. He is trying to take away our liberties and rights under the Constitution. He is tyring to take away our Second amendment rights, our guns, to make us defensless against the government. That in turn leaves us defensless against aggressors on our property.

Suggest removal:

2VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 1 year, 8 months ago

The President is not doing the job he swore on Martin Luther King's and Abraham Lincoln's Bible to do...defend the Constitution and the people the Constitution was written to defend. He is even laying our Constitution at the feet of the U.N. for it's disposition as they see fit. The U.N. - chaired by Communists, Socialists, and human abuse countries around the world could actually be re-writing our Constitution with the President's blessings.

The President should actually be our number one champion of our Constitution, as he swore to do. This is the job of our Chief Executive, the Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. military forces and the President of the United States of America, but he is actually passing judgment and attempting to change the Constitution rather than defend it. Can this be called treason? What would George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln have to say about that?

Wake up folks. This is far, far more serious than just gun control! He is using current events as a tool to keep his promises to those who wish to destroy us by taking away citizens' rights!

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport