Thursday, July 26, 2012

The Argument for the 2nd Amendment

As all of you know, there has been much debate over the past few days over whether there should be changes to the Second Amendment, which states that any American citizen has the right to keep and bear arms. This debate has mainly been sparked by the recent Colorado "Batman Movie Massacre" (thank Inside Edition for such a flashy title) where 24-year-old James Holmes walked into a movie theater armed to the teeth with guns and killed 12 people while injuring dozens of others.

Immediately after the massacre, I sided with those who believed changes should, indeed, be made to the second amendment. I thought the right to "bear arms" was an antiquated right more relevant in the late 1700s where people essentially couldn't possess anything much more powerful than a musket. I could see where our forefathers were coming from when they made the amendment. I mean, why should the government have arms while ordinary citizens couldn't? It wouldn't be fair. Everybody was equal. That's what the new America was all about. And if anybody ever snapped, that person would only be able to do so much harm. If, for example, a madman like James Holmes went into a theater where a play was being performed and started shooting people up, he would probably only be able to get one shot off from his musket before somebody was able to tackle him.

Today, of course, things are a little different. Muskets have been replaced with all sorts of powerful automatic weapons that can kill masses of people within seconds. And clearly this has become a Columbine, Virgina State, Aurora etc. So, up until recently, I thought that, yes, of course changes needed to be made. The 2nd Amendment needed to be tailored, if not abolished completely. This was the only way to prevent another mass shooting!

But before I made up my mind completely, I wanted to listen to the people who, despite the recent Colorado incident, were still adamant about protecting the 2nd amendment. And these people weren't just gun-toting NRA members who run Charlton Heston fan clubs. They were actually very intelligent, rationally-minded people. One of these persons was an alternative media radio host named Alex Jones.

Yes, I said 'Alex Jones'. Please don't stop reading. Many people quickly dismiss Alex Jones as an eccentric conspiracy theorist and I agree that he's extremely eccentric and oftentimes needlessly intense. However, I always try and hear him out before I completely ignore the guy. As far as the movie massacre goes, Jones is ninety-five-percent certain that the shooting was what-is-referred-to-as a government "false flag operation". This means that high-level government officials carefully orchestrated this attack and used James Holmes as a Patsy, the fall guy. Helping to support this theory is the fact that there were multiple witnesses who claim more than one person was involved in the shooting. One witness, for example, claimed he saw a second man let the shooter into the theater (how else would Holmes have entered through the emergency exit?) and another witness claimed the gas bombs were being shot into the crowd from several different directions, indicating that there must have been at least one other person involved. (View the interviews of these witnesses HERE and HERE).

But why would the government want to stage something so very horrific? According to Jones, they have a very specific agenda. There is currently a UN Arms Treaty being circulated around Washington that is expected to be voted on within the upcoming weeks. This treaty will essentially create a global weapons registry; all privately-owned firearms will have to be registered in a way so that all of these weapons will be accounted for and easy for the government to locate. Jones argues that the purpose of this registry is to make it easier for the government to disarm the public further down the road. If all weapons are registered, it's easier to locate and collect them.

Now, is it only a coincidence that the horrific Colorado movie massacre occurred at the same time that this arms treaty was going around Washington? In Jones' eyes, it wasn't. The movie massacre was staged by a high order of government officials in order to rally the public and politicians into supporting this treaty that will result in better gun control.

Of course, Jones' theory seems very fantastical at first, but when you look at certain details, it begins to make some possible sense. "False-flag operations" are not anything new...every government leader over the course of history (from Nero to Hitler) has used these tactics in order to rally public support for something. As evil as they may seem, in the government's eyes, the end justifies the means. Twelve people killed in a movie theater is a small price to pay for the long-term consequences of disarming the American public and (in their eyes) creating a more peaceful world.

But would disarmament actually create a more peaceful world? If you ask Alex Jones this question, he would be quick to cite a quote from our forefather James Mason, the co-author of the second amendment:

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

Yes, Mason's quote comes off as being, perhaps, a tad paranoid, but one important example to look at in history is Hitler and the Holocaust. As soon as Hitler came into power in 1933 he immediately started making laws that called for weapon registries and those laws subsequently mutated into laws that gradually disarmed the Jewish people. His efforts culminated in the 1938 Weapons Law where Jews were forced to surrender all their firearms lest they be sentenced to a concentration camp for 20 years (of course, the Jews were going to end up in concentration camps anyway, though they didn't know it at the time). All historians agree that Hitler never would have been able to murder the 21 million people he murdered if he didn't disarm them first. It just wouldn't have been possible.

Of course, most people think the Holocaust is ancient history and nothing like that could ever happen again. But how do we know for sure? A crazy dictator like Hitler has risen to power time and time again during the course of World History. If we lose our right to bear arms, who's to say - several years down the road - that a Hitler-like leader won't rise to power in America? What if (for example) some nut-job came into power and decided that the solution to overpopulation (which, of course, is a major issue in today's world) is mass genocide? We would be sitting ducks. We wouldn't be able to do anything about it. They could come to our houses, methodically herd us into buses and ship us off to camps without having to deal with any kind of fight, just like the Jews in Germany. So we at least need to reserve the right to arm ourselves with weapons if only for the sake of deterring psychopathic leaders like Hitler.

Don't get me wrong: in an ideal world, weapons wouldn't exist at all, across the board. EVERYBODY would be disarmed - both the common Joe and members of the government and, of course, there would be no armed army. But this is not an ideal world and citizens become way too vulnerable when they allow themselves to limit their access to arms while the ruling government allows itself to be armed to the teeth.

But let me get back to the UN Arms Treaty circulating Washington right now. As I mentioned before, this treaty would create a global gun registry. The government will know who has weapons and who doesn't. Although supporters of the treaty believe gun registry won't infringe upon the second amendment, it actually does if looked at from the perspective of a potentially armed populace being a deterrent against a corrupt government. If (for example) a psychopathic leader like Hitler ever came into power with depopulation on his mind and he knows who has weapons and who doesn't, it will be all the easier for him to exterminate those who are unarmed or, if he goes the next step, collect the weapons from those who ARE armed. The key word is control. If there is actual gun "control", then a potentially armed public ceases to act as a deterrent against a corrupt government or leader. The thing that deters a leader like Hitler is the LACK of control, not knowing who has weapons - what kind and how much.

In summary, the UN Arms Treaty has the appearance of meaning well, but it is - in fact - a bad idea. Global registry of arms is the first step necessary in order to ultimately disarm the public entirely. Once a government knows who has weapons, it makes it easier to collect them when/if it wants to (and if, down the road, the government becomes as corrupt as Germany in the 1930s, it WILL probably want to).

So with the Colorado movie massacre conveniently taking place at the very same time this UN Arms Treaty is circulating Washington, there is all the more pressure for politicians and the public to give the treaty support. But I feel like we can't make any rash decisions, even after such a horrific incident like what happened in Aurora. Whether the massacre was a staged false-flag operation or not, we really need to take our time, look at the long-term effects of gun control and see if it's such a good idea to permanently limit our access to arms. And the important word there is permanently. Once we waive our right to bear arms, it's gone for good, and we will be in big trouble if - down the road - our government turns corrupt on us, which isn't a far-fetched idea if you look at the course of world history.