PDA

View Full Version : Banning Guns Threatens Survival



Nachtengel
Saturday, March 7th, 2009, 12:24 PM
Given that the point of having a constitution was that it was supposed to give the people of the US a guiding doctrine, by which to navigate the years ahead. Foremost among its departments were the three branches of government that were supposed to balance and check one-another in order to keep peace and order among the initial colonies, and later to attempt to bring continuity to the expanded version of that colonial model that lies in ruins today.

The three branches have lost their individual identities and become one vast collection of lobbyists, politicians and power brokers-all loosely following the dictates of something called "the decider." And underneath all these corrupt and self-appointed owners of this society lies that first casualty whose corpse is barely still visible amid the debris that Empire has made out of a once functioning Republic.

BACKGROUND: "WASHINGTON (Nov. 20) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.
City officials said the law is designed to reduce gun violence, noting that four out of every five homicides this year was committed with a gun. Opponents of the ban pointed to the level of violence to make their case that Washington residents should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves in their homes."

What is at risk in this coming decision by the US Supreme Court is not only the survival of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, but the right of individuals to protect themselves, in this new criminal environment where traditional police departments have largely deserted their traditional role of "Protecting & Serving" the public, to becoming an armed force that too often fails to protect victims while they often contribute to the criminal nature of that inherent violence that is pivotal in the national psyche now.

In simple terms, those people who are not protected by the laws are still responsible for their own protection; whenever individuals are attacked. Traditionally the police have always lobbied against this philosophy, but the right of an individual to survive ultimately lies with each person-and their own abilities to overcome any real threat to their lives.

This idea of gun ownership was born in the run-up to the American Revolution as a legitimate way to resist the occupation forces in the colonies. As that fledgling government had no real resources, individuals needed to have and maintain their own weapons, hence the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which emphasizes its importance by being the second out of ten amendments.

However the "Ban" over the ownership and use of guns in Washington D.C. violated The Second Amendment, at least in principle, if not in fact. The wider issue has now become whether or not people without the influence necessary to have police protection currently, are entitled to protect themselves-or if these future victims are to be disarmed in the face of the reality; that the Legal and the Criminal Justice Systems both deny as a fact of everyday life today. (1)

This aspect of life is what will really be 'on trial' in this decision by the US Supreme Court, because there are at least two Americas, one for the rich and the other one where chaos tends to fill in all the cracks, in what remains of the infrastructure. . .

The depths of this problem are illustrated clearly in our threadbare foreign policy and its ramifications for those that have lost their jobs and their safety nets, along with most of what used to be part of their future-all of which was consumed by illegal and unilaterally declared invasions that the Cheney-Bush-Bandits are still calling 'the War-on-Terror.'

Those wars cost huge amounts of treasure, in both blood and money, not-to-mention the promises deferred and the dreams denied. The money was lavishly spent, poured out by the literal ton into that black hole of fear and terror that has yet to be even remotely substantiated.

The actual body count according to the VA since Gulf War 1 in Iraq is 73,846. http://www.rense.com/general78/since.htm

So-what did we get for all that blood & money? Nothing * except more privation, far-less security, and the near total collapse of the entire infrastructure-not to mention the loss of our own Constitutional Rights, coupled with the wholesale loss of political representation at every level of government.

"What can you get for a trillion bucks? Or make that $1.6 trillion, if you take the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as tallied by the majority staff of Congress' Joint Economic Committee (JEC). Or is it the $3.5 trillion figure cited by Ron Paul, whose concern about the true cost of this war for ordinary Americans shames the leading Democrats, who prattle on about needed domestic programs that will never find funding because of future war-related government debt."
"Given that the overall defense budget is now double what it was when Bush's father presided over the end of the Cold War, at a time when we don't have a militarily sophisticated enemy in sight, you have to wonder how this president has managed to exceed Cold War spending levels. What has he gotten for the trillions wasted? Nothing, when it comes to capturing bin Laden, bringing democracy to Iraq, or preventing oil prices from tripling and enriching the ayatollahs of Iran while messing up the American economy.

But that money could have paid for a lot of things we could have used here at home. As Paul points out, for what the Iraq war costs, we could present each family of four a check for $46,000 - which exceeds the $43,000 median household income in his Texas district. He asks: "What about the impact of those costs on education, the very thing that so often helps to increase earnings? $46,000 would cover 90 percent of the tuition costs to attend a four-year public university in Texas for both children in that family of four. But, instead of sending kids to college, too often we're sending them to Iraq, where the best news in a long time is they aren't killing our men and women as fast as they were last month."(2)

However what's really been lost in all these surges, both military and economic is the realization that the country has undergone a total makeover in virtually every area. We make and export almost nothing except jobs. We have no functional Immigration protection for American jobs or for purposes of population control, hence the nation is being overrun with ever-increasing numbers of people that drive up the cost of everything and reduce wages to minimums that no longer cover daily life.

We've lost our freedom to challenge the government on their policies, and our right to speak freely. Our control over the airwaves has been stolen from us by the criminal actions of the FCC and the major multinationals that seek ever greater control over everything we hear, read or see. Consequently: There is no longer any mechanism for people to demand redress for their grievances, except the courts, which are completely beyond the means of most people. (3)

"Everybody knows the system's busted" but nobody gives a damn-in this environment people need the right to protect themselves from government as well as from common criminals. The government has contributed to the dangers of everyday life here in direct proportion to the amount of money and blood that they've wasted overseas and now it appears that the last threshold of protection might also be taken away-but that can't happen unless the public and the ordinary people continue to remain silent!
http://www.rense.com/general79/banst.htm