By Stan Grant
This is a question we hear a lot these days, and after Sandy Hook (or any mass casualty event in a gun-free-zone) the gun grabbers assume they have the moral ground to take them from you. After all, they’re not used to hunt, therefore you shouldn’t have them.
To begin with, assault is not a weapon, it is a behavior. But the politically correct crowd assign that title to guns that are cosmetically incorrect (black) or that hold multi-round magazines. That’s pretty much everything on the market, so an “assault weapons” ban is akin to a complete ban on gun ownership. It’s a tyrant’s best friend.
Furthermore, an “assault weapons”ban ignores the reason we have a 2nd amendment. These God-given (not government-given) rights were enumerated to retain the civilian’s ability to FIGHT, not HUNT. The 2nd was designed to tilt the battlefield in favor of the armed civilian, and the civilians in the American Revolution had the exact same weapons as a standing army.
This leads to a question: What, or whom, did our forefathers believe we may have to fight? This would tell us a great deal about the type of weaponry they intended for civilians to own. Our forefather’s own quotes tell us what or whom you may need to defend yourself against, and it has little to do with the British. Below is a list, using their own words, of why you should own significant firepower, and who you may need to use it against.
Bad guys and criminals:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. * Thomas Jefferson, 1764
What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms. * Thomas Jefferson
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. * George Washington
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government… * Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28) .
(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. * James Madison.
The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. * Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787) in Pamplets on the Constitution of the United States (P.Ford, 1888)
[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People. * Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Those who would enslave:
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t. * Ben Franklin
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. * Patrick Henry.
Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? * Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. * Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.
Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them. * Thomas Paine
The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country… * James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).
Stony Hook was a horrific situation. But just for a moment, put it in perspective by laying it against the totality of human history. Measure it against the likes of Mao, Stalin and Hitler. The atrocities committed by Godless governments against unarmed civilians make Stony Hook pale in comparison. The bottom line is that when the people fear their government, you have tyranny. When the government fears its people, you have liberty. Suffice it to say, I think I’ll keep my “assault weapons”.
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. * Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B.Stanley Grant is the Author of the book “In Defense of a Nation” and co-host of the weekly radio broadcast of the same name. To learn more about the book, author and show visit www.indefenseofanation.com