Welcome! Login | Register
 

Paul Giorgio: Ebola Should Not Be A Political Football—It’s probably a good thing to worry about…

Former Federal Official to Give Lecture at Clark—Dan Sichel, a former senior official at the…

Report: Patriots Bolster Roster With Two Moves—Tuesday's are generally off days at Gillette Stadium.…

Christie Administration Withholds Findings Into Baker Pay-to-Play Investigation—Republican Governors Association Chair Chris Christie and his…

5 Good Things That Happened To The Patriots This Weekend—Pats relaxed as good things happened for them.

Angiulo: A Call to End Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Massachusetts Drug Cases—The Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial…

TankTheGasTax.Net PAC Endorses Rehl for State Representative—TankTheGasTax.Net PAC has endorsed Mark Rehl for State…

Smart Benefits: When Dental and Vision Don’t Count…Under PPAC, That Is—The IRS, DOL and HHS recently issued final…

AIDS Project Worcester and Pathways for Change to Host Masquerade Ball—AIDS Project Worcester and Pathways for Change will…

Best Halloween Events in New England—Halloween is less than two weeks away.

 
 

Arthur Schaper: Stand Your Ground, Connecticut!

Friday, March 14, 2014

 

The argument of protection from the state in the Second Amendment, despite tragic gun deaths circumstances resulting from gun violence, cannot be stressed enough, believes Arthur Schaper. Photo: Flickr/weaverphoto

“The Concord Hymn”, Ralph Waldo Emerson

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;
Alike the conqueror silent sleeps;
And Time the ruined bridge has swept
Down the dark stream which seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
We set today a votive stone;
That memory may their deed redeem,
When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

Spirit, that made those heroes dare
To die, and leave their children free,
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
The shaft we raise to them and thee.

Commemorating the Battle of Concord, purportedly the first gunfight of the American Revolution, this celebrated hymn signals how that little fight brought forth this great country. Fast forward two centuries, and another freedom fight is brewing, hopefully without gunshots, connecting individual liberties and the right to keep and bear arms to protect those rights.

A bastion of liberty in the face of status quo statism, the American experience rests on the liberty of the individual limiting the government.

The key enforcer of these limits, The Bill of Rights, starts with freedom of speech, then religion, followed by press, association, and petition, hard-fought rights rendered meaningless without the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Freedom means nothing without enforcement, and per United States v. Verdugo-Irquidez (1996), the reference of right conveys that despite the first phrase of the amendment, the right to bear arms belongs to individuals, and stresses the citizen’s authority to protect himself from a tyrannical government.

The American Revolution began with a gunshot, in response to King George III’s attempted confiscation of the New England colonists’ firearms. From “The shot heard round the world” broke forth a new nation, where freedoms born would remain borne by those who bear arms in the face of any threat, domestic as well as foreign.

The argument of protection from the state in the Second Amendment, despite tragic gun deaths circumstances resulting from gun violence, cannot be stressed enough. Yet from Brady Bill assault weapons bans to restrictive laws in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (including US Senator Ed Markey’s dumb “smart gun” proposal), government elites are gunning for gun rights again.

What rekindled this fire fight, anyway?

Following the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre, (twenty-six deaths, including six children) Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy enacted restrictive gun control measures, despite his rhetorical moniker of “common sense reforms”. Not only would the state require universal background checks, including in private sales, but future magazine rounds would be restricted, and one hundred types of assault weapons would be banned. Gun owners would have to register their guns with the state, or face a felony charge, fine, and jail time.

Intending, at least openly, to deter crime, gun control measures do not work. In the case of the Newtown Massacre, the gun free zone provisions for public schools inadvertently leave students as easy targets for potential assailants

Assault weapons bans fail to ban assault, since the laws restrict law-abiding citizens, while criminals can seek out firearms and commit crimes.

Despite the rising amount of academic and empirical evidence discrediting gun control, liberal state leaders like Governor Malloy insist on political maneuvers which appease a fraught and distraught public, while ignoring the true causes and best solutions for reducing gun violence.

Come 2014, and Connecticut gun owners, like the embattled farmers of colonial times, refuse to comply.

Pro-Second Amendment advocacy group Connecticut Carry spread lawn signs demanding the repeal of the draconian, overreaching law. Now that they are engaging in full civil disobedience, they are pressing state lawmakers, and ultimately the police with “Molon Labe” or “Come and get it.” Another report confirms that tens of thousands are not complying with the law. The Blaze has also reported that the Connecticut state agency responsible for enforcing the law has faced a hit-and-miss response from a limited number of gun owners. In some instances, the state has accepted late applications, in other cases the very residents who come forward and register their weapons find themselves targeted with more invasive scrutiny.

So far, a federal judge has upheld Malloy’s law , yet respondents have appealed the ruling. Gun control measures like Connecticut’s laws have failed to consider the deep-set views which gun owners have about firearms. Beyond asserting their Second Amendment authority as a matter of individual right, the recognition of government tyranny, especially in democratic states, cannot be ignored. Totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany exploited gun registries, then gun confiscation. Because of the argument that self-preservation is a fundamental right per natural and Common law, the gaining influence of Second Amendment activists can no longer be resisted.

Even Brian Hawkins of Right Wing News affirmed the dangerous implications of any government trying to enforce gun registry laws. One has to wonder how much longer the mainstream media will ignore Connecticut lawmakers’ invasion of personal liberty. Connecticut residents aren’t, and they are not afraid to expose radical elements seeking to confiscate their guns. Mixed reports indicated that 250 Connecticut police officers signed a letter, refusing to enforce confiscation. Now exposed as a hoax, the ploy at least demonstrates a growing support for civil disobedience on this issue. No matter what transpires, Connecticut’s gun owners are not heeding this invasive policy, and they are rejecting the state’s call for an en masse registry.

Let us hope that Connecticut residents stand their ground against this unconscionable, unconstitutional overreach.

 

Arthur Christopher Schaper is a teacher-turned-writer on topics both timeless and timely; political, cultural, and eternal. A life-long Southern California resident, Arthur currently lives in Torrance. Follow him on Twitter @ArthurCSchaper, reach him at [email protected], and read more at Schaper's Corner and As He Is, So Are We Ministries.

 

Related Slideshow: The Influence of Gun Money in New England States

New Data from The Sunlight Foundation shows state-by-state breakdowns for donations to groups on both sides of the gun debate. The money went toward candidates, political parties, and political action committees (PACs), but doesn't include donations to independent or so-called “super PACs”.

 

See how much money went to candidates in each of the New England States in the slides below.

Prev Next

Rhode Island

State Candidates

Control $: 0

Rights $: 229650

Federal Candidates

Control $: 19557

Rights $: 5612

Prev Next

Massachusetts

State Candidates

Control $: 2850

Rights $: 20538

Federal Candidates

Control $: 54058

Rights $: 104579

Prev Next

Maine

State Candidates

Control $: 8325

Rights $: 51700

Federal Candidates

Control $: 27318

Rights $: 142505

Prev Next

Connecticut

State Candidates

Control $: 4076

Rights $: 56200

Federal Candidates

Control $: 43666

Rights $: 121596

Prev Next

Vermont

State Candidates

Control $: 0

Rights $: 40330

Federal Candidates

Control $: 4500

Rights $: 7550

Prev Next

New Hampsire

State Candidates

Control $: 1500

Rights $: 22475

Federal Candidates

Control $: 34337

Rights $: 293560

 
 

Related Articles

 

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.