Not a Tango, nothing to see here

June 4, 2010

The words of the Brady, the words of the armed citizen.

Filed under: 2A, guns, rights — antitango @ 6:57 am

Not the same thing!  I have some real problems with what Paul Helmke is saying.

First, he states that “it was a good thing to be opposed to violent overthrow of the government of the United States”  The government at the time, was not oppressive.  It did not force its citizens to buy into programs that are supposed to be private.  They did not force citizens to disarm themselves.  He counters it by saying the current NRA stance, as quoted by Wayne LaPierre, is: “the people have the right, must have the right, to take whatever measures necessary, including force, to abolish oppressive government.”  Is Paul Helmke arguing this point?  Does he insist that we should allow an oppressive government (let’s remove the words United States from this since Mr. LaPierre didn’t mention this name) to dominate its citizens?  Let’s break Godwin’s law.  Nazis.  Nazi Germany was an oppressive government.  Just a little bit, right?  Does Mr. Helmke believe it would be bad to abolish that oppressive government?  Mr. LaPierre chose the words he did for a reason.  He did not say it was time to remove the US government.  He said that the ability MUST BE PRESENT for the people to remove a government if it does not meet the needs of its constituents.  Those needs being safety and freedom.  When the government can no longer provide those to the subjects, then it no longer serves it’s purpose.  Again, nowhere does Wayne LaPierre say that the United States is at that tipping point.

Next, he’s putting words in the mouths of those that enjoy our gun rights.  He says that the NRA fights “against limiting the access to firearms of people on the government’s terror watch list.”  The NRA and other non-members are fighting against limiting the access of firearms of people that need to defend or feed themselves.  Mr. Helmke believes that the terror watch list should be used as a guide rod for the gun control movement.  He believes that because someone is on a terror watch list, they should have their bill of rights removed.  Those journalists that have made it to the watch list, they can no longer own guns.  Those teachers that share names with a terrorist, too bad!  If he believes that is the stance of the NRA and he does not believe in that stance, then the only possible conclusion I can come up with is that he believes that Due Process needs to be removed when the Second Amendment is involved.  Because, you konw…  it’s not a REAL right like the First Amendment.

Third, this is along the same vein.  Mr. Helmke says that we oppose removing the loophole that allows felons to buy guns.  This is wrong, since there is no loophole.  There are already checks in place for this.  Gun shows have 2 types of vendors.  Private and Dealer sales.  Private sales do not need a “Gun show” to happen.  Dealer sales require paperwork to be filed and a background check to be done, just as they’ve always required.  If a felon wants a gun, they will get one.  If every single seller, dealer or private, is required to perform background checks, the cost of our Second Amendment goes up exponentially.  I think Americans should be required to have a background check and license in order to speak publicly.  It’s dangerous to democracy and the government.  This license should cost about $65 and have to be renewed every 5 years.  Oh, and that’s just the cost in the individual state.  The Fed .gov wants their cut, too.

We don’t want OUR legal ability to go away to purchase firearms at a gun show.  Restricting sales at these shows will not prevent or deter a felon from obtaining a firearm.  At all.  There are already checks in place and they do not good.  All they accomplish is to prevent the Average Joe from getting a Remington 870 to keep by his bedside to protect his family.

On that note, Mr. Helmke says: “Watch that muzzle, boys.  And be sure of your target.”  I think you need to follow your own advice.  Who is your target?  A felon or a man with 3 kids and a wife to protect?  Your aim is a cluster bomb taking out the entire city.  You’re apparently ok with that collateral damage.  If any law infringes the rights of a citizen to purchase a firearm for his own person use that is not restricted by other laws (felon, etc), then it is a law that needs to be reworked.  Deny those terrorists, don’t deny those citizens.  Mr. Helmke, we know who our target ISN’T.  Our target is NOT the American citizen.  Who’s your target?

Note:  I am NOT a member of the NRA nor am I attempting to pass as one.  There are some issues that I believe the same as they do about.


Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at