Why I'm Against Banning Any Weapons, Though I Support Every Other Gun Reform Proposed By President Obama

I love that phrase "Civil Right". What is a "Civil Right"?

In all CIVILization, life is the most basic and common Right of all humanity. Therefore, any thing that protects it must be also a Civil Right. The right to defend life is a basic Civil Right of all humanity.  I dare say even more so than marriage and even of voting.

Many often do not view the defense of the Second Amendment as a Civil Right, but it is my hope to lay out and explain an acceptable argument in that if life and freedom of life is most basic to all humanity, so must one's defense of these because it defends both of them.

There is a reason that our great American founders saw fit to make the defense of the Nation's free state, the very second thought and founding principle, second only to religion or personal freedom to openly believe and be what one wishes to be when creating this country we all adore. Think about that. The Second Amendment is before privacy, before voting, before equal rights and ahead of the protection of States right.

I believe if all who oppose, for whatever reasons; personal, tragedy or other, viewed the Second and bearing of arms as a native born right, even if it's a right they'd rather not exercise or choose to exercise in other ways, they would change their tune and wholly support and protect every good citizens right to bear arms to defend nation and self.

The Right to bear arms is an American Civil Right as long as there are others who may oppose anyone elses life and freedom by bearing arms.

This would not be the first time, Liberals, based on principle, went against personal preference and had to make strange bedfellows to protect the greater good. There have seen many lawyers and Justice groups that have freed criminals that have committed heinous acts to keep the integrity of common rights and for Justice's sake. Justice is the tie that binds. And more than any other nation, the integrity of America Justice must be kept sure and unmoveable.

Another unusual alliance that defied been again fighters for Justice and Hate Mongers or Hate groups.

Through out American history, there has been actions and language that were contrary to our American values, or at least our written values and of general society; though widely accepted and legally sanctioned at certain times in our history. But at any rate, all such language at all times were legally protected.

But especially in the 80's, when racist and hate speech was most detestable (at least publically) by all main stream society, a new era of KKK members and skin heads began to rise up and wanted a voice and be more than a sub-culture.  Some were even "normal" looking with "normal" jobs and occupations such as politicians, business men and even "clergy". Many exchanged "white sheets" for suits and ties, though they partnered also with those of the stereotypical racist look and demeanor. But they were openly, and unfortunately unabashed bigots that used especially the Talk Show genre as a platform. These also used American Constitutional rights such as free speech, the right to publish publically, and the right to organize as provided by our First Amendment as protection, successfully. And Civil Rights activists rightfully agreed with them.

During the 80's, these not only were on TV, they won the right to march in parades, use bill boards and pass out literature that was offensive and promoted their beliefs, using the First Amendment. During these times, even the most Liberal and loving individuals and groups, and even those that were of the races, religions and physical groups being defamed, demeaned and verbally attacked, which could lead to more harm and physical attacks, had to consent on principle and American values that these racists had the American right to do and say what they were doing and saying.

Legislation would not work, lest we are no longer America. The only counter attack to the rise of racists was education, and using the same platforms as the bigots like Talk Shows, and confronting these with truth. Then, the people decided what kind of society we wanted to be and made changes without laws or changing principles. Racism may not be totally erradicated, and may not ever be, but truth won by controlling the conversation, without impeding the right out the opposition and keeping them from the conversation.

In the above example, it concerns the First Amendment. In our fight for New Federal Gun Regulations, we must consider the protecting of our Second Amendment, more so than protecting any of our preferences or our own righteousness. We must see farther down the road when making decisions now.

I won't get into every detail, they are being hashed and re-hashed daily. I agree with all the points being proposed by the Obama administration, organized for action and all other groups with the President, including the grieving parents and family members of Newtown and Sandy Hook, Connecticut.

I am for all points EXCEPT any gun ban, including any ban on "assault" rifles and weapons. Perhaps, a higher standard can be applied to individuals who want certain kinds of weapons, just as we have different standards for operating certain motor vehicles, but not a ban. That would be unconstitutional and may come back to bite us later. 

It takes much discipline to apply and honor and protect rights that may lead to actions that we oppose and disagree with, but to maintain the general integrity of the nation.

What constitutional argument can be made to forbid even one law abiding citizen from purchasing these weapons? The good citizen's rights should never be impeded based on the actions of criminals, the mentally ill, or any other that doesn't or won't  comply with common legal and moral standards. The good should never be punished for the bad. And guns don't kill, people do. Just as they don't defend, people do.

In all instances, whether it is of these mass killings, or inner city crime, it should be a law enforcement issue and not a new legislation issue except those that do not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

I know that unpleasant speech, no matter how unpleasant, can not be compared to the horror of losing a child, or any loved one, or the loss of life at all, though hate speech can set the atmosphere for violence and has. But protecting any right of anyone at any time can be compared.

God bless us all. It is right to want action. But we must always think justice first.

Please remember that all of America is based on Liberty and Justice for all. Yes, taking these from all in essence may have the same desired effect as ensuring them for all, but with far less value and happiness for the living.

Thank You.

God Bless the USA. It just works.

Yulanda K.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.10