Criminalizing the second amenment: “Zero tolerance” policies on guns

Published 15 years ago -  - 15y ago 8


usa-1120579_1280

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms.disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.” —- Thomas Jefferson

Americans have always recognized the necessity for firearms. For that reason, it will be the longest, most protracted battle the U.S. Government has ever waged to disarm this nation without massive force. Nevertheless, a politically correct hostility, fed by the national media, is growing-in government, in corporate America and among the general public-toward anyone who exercises or even defends the right to keep and bear arms.

An acquaintance of mine is a genuine, old-style gunsmith and an expert on many guns made in the last two centuries. Until a few years ago, he was occasionally invited to speak to public school history classes, showing students the weapons that won America’s wars. As anyone who has ever sat through a high school history lecture can imagine, it was a fascinating demonstration that made American History come alive for the students.

These were non-working weapons. No firing pins. No ammunition. The genuine article, to be sure, but dummy guns nonetheless, designed for one purpose: to look at.

These facts had no impact on the decision to ban this man and his historic firearms from the premises when “zero tolerance” policies on weapons became the norm for schools across the country. He could still come and give his little talks, but no guns!

Jack Weigand, owner of a firearms business recently ordered a Dell computer. When it had not arrived by the promised date, Weigand called the company and was informed that his order had been cancelled. It seems that in this post-9/11 world, the name of Jack’s business, “Weigand Combat Handguns, Inc.,” sounded just a little too terroristic for some middle manager at Dell, who was concerned that the computer might be used for “illegal purposes.”

Because of intense government scrutiny, Weigand’s business dealings must be totally above board. Apparently, none of that mattered to the folks at Dell. The “sound” of the name was enough to demonize him and his company. Weigand says Dell has apologized and offered to give him a free computer, which he has declined.

Finally, there is the absurd story of a second-grader in Florida, who was arrested and charged with aggravated assault. Officials say he could be expelled for the remainder of this school year and all of the next. His crime? In violation of the school’s “zero tolerance” policy (there it is again), this hardened little nine-year-old criminal had chased other students on the playground with a toy gun!

I was that age in the fifties, and I just thank the Lord that “zero tolerance” wasn’t the law of the schoolyard then, or my education-and that of most of my male classmates-would have ended half-way through first grade. Of course, it never would have occurred to our teachers that what we were playing with was anything other than a toy.

In order to transform the United States from a prosperous, representative republic with sweeping personal liberties into the centralized utopia of which they dream, liberals recognized long ago that it would be necessary to convince the American people that their Constitution is “a living, breathing document” that must “change with the times.” Unfortunately, many people have accepted that premise.

More alarmingly, many judges and legislators accepted it long ago. In their world, the Constitution is just a guide. Rather than accepting its common-sense language at face value, the judiciary can interpret it according to the whims of the day. Unable to persuade the people or their representatives of a radical position on an issue, the Left simply pushes a test case through the courts until the final arbiter of all things legal, the U.S. Supreme Court, usurps the role of the Legislative Branch by creating new law and establishing a precedent, of which there can be no further review.

A great deal of evidence exists that armed citizens prevent crime. More important to our Founders was the premise that an armed populace is more likely to remain free from the tyranny of big government. By allowing our lawmakers to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners, the courts have arrogantly ignored the clear-cut language of the Second Amendment.

The Constitution of the United States of America contains a few simple rules that the U.S. Government must follow in order for the people to maintain their liberties.

That is why liberals hate it.

8 recommended
comments icon 0 comments
0 notes
270 views
bookmark icon

Write a comment...

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *