Quick Search


by Charleston Voice

You've all seen the pictures on CNN. Those piles of AK-47s being crushed under the treads of our M1A1 Abrams tanks. Another instance of a soldier or Marine officer gleefully announcing that they were destroying a captured cache of 4,700 AKs. Even better was the discovery of over 9,000 Beretta automatics, new, in the boxes. Wonder if those will be spared from destruction. Boy, I'd love to have one of those.

"No, Iraqis did not need a Second Amendment; they needed the wherewithal to exercise it. The wherewithal Americans still have, but do not exercise."

Earlier, maybe even before the attack on Iraq, we reported that private guns shops thrived in Iraq. Probably little different than the pictures we see of gun stalls in Islamabad or Karachi. Many of us wondered how a regime so brutal under a Saddam could even take root in a climate so forged with widespread civilian gun ownership. I would imagine it's standing the Second Amendment defenders in America on their heads! How could it happen? The people - common citizens - had the means at their disposal to overthrow tyranny, didn't they? Are we to conclude from the absence of resistance that Saddam was lauded for his paternal leadership?

We think otherwise, and should learn some valuable lessons how Iraqis lost their freedoms, and will have no chance to reclaim their freedom as we in America envision "freedom" to be understood. They will truly get the "democracy" they deserve, a form of government that our Founding Fathers so rightfully warned us against. Democracy is Mobocracy they knew. It violates the rights of the individual. That's why it is so widely touted by collectivists, communists, and internationalists of all stripes. Why else do you think totalitarian governments frequently call themselves "peoples democratic republics", or some other such derivative.

So, if the Iraqis are to be "free" why did the Marines go from block to block and room to room throughout Baghdad to find guns after the fedayeen were quieted? By that time it was safe enough for informers to come forward without reprisal, and point out the Saddam holdouts to their liberators. Are the 'good' and law-abiding Iraqis to get their confiscated guns returned? What do you think?

We submit that the reason this large gun ownership population did not overthrow the Saddam regime is that the civilian spy network was so extensive and well established it would have meant certain death after torture had anyone dared to discuss revolution with their friends, family, or neighbors. In effect, Saddam had established the advanced version of a homeland security infrastructure. Tyrannies are excellent mediums to get back at personal enemies, a business competitors, ex-spouses, annoying neighbors, or whomever else causes you irritation. Simply dial-in to a government-furnished 800 number now so commonly established for whatever grievance or offense you've perceived. That's it. The government agents will do the rest. So, you think your boss at work is punishing his children too severely (or at all!)? Call in the child protection squad, Child Welfare, Child Protective Services, or whatever they call it in your state. Wait until that becomes federalized then we can really go downtown with child offenses! You suspect a competitor is running an unsafe workshop, or maybe dumping harmful chemicals in a river? We've got OSHA and the Environmental Protection Police for that.

Are you getting the point? Guns in the hands of the Iraqi people could not save them from tyranny. Our Second Amendment was added to ensure Americans had the means, should it ever become necessary, to overthrow tyranny. But, the Amendment does not give us the guarantee that we will always be able to exercise it. No, being able to use it derives its usefulness from a citizenry sufficiently informed as to halt the other government intrusions which render the Second Amendment ineffective. Our Founders could only give to us the Second Amendment guarantee on paper. How we protected it, was up to us. In fact, we believe that had there not been a deadly and brutal secret police network installed, Iraqis could have thrown off their oppressors without the guarantee of a Second Amendment!

To talk about, or even plan an overthrow of tyranny in the United States, is the lazy American's way out. You don't have to be informed about where your rights come from, who your congressman is, or even bother to vote on what bothers you. Our enemies count on you becoming discouraged and giving up. You'll still be able to make the Stanley Cup Playoffs, sit in your season ticket third base line seats, and talk revolution in your spare time. Protecting your freedoms comes after your earthly pleasures are satisfied. I have not a thing against hockey or baseball. I so vividly recall the pounding backchecks of Dallas Smith and Don Aurey in the corners behind the Bruins goal. I even saw Jim Piersall stomp on his cap in right field, live and in full living color at Fenway Park. I know what it is to have fun. But, I also know what it is to feel oppressed, and to do nothing in my own defense is even worse. How can you ignore evil and do nothing when it's right in front of you? Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (James 4.17). If ignorance is bliss why is it that Americans are not happy?

No, Iraqis did not need a Second Amendment; they needed the wherewithal to exercise it. The wherewithal Americans still have, but do not exercise.

If, as an American, you choose to do nothing, you will indeed, have your gun pried from your cold dead fingers. For those who wish to avoid the violence and anarchy, we still have the guarantees of a Constitution, but only if we exercise them.

Ask an Iraqi which guarantee he'd rather have.........given another chance.

Charleston Voice

E-Mail This Article

Printer Version

Armed Females of America
E-mail Us
2702 E. University
Ste. 103 PMB 213
Mesa, AZ 85213