Rudy Giuliani Defends Gun Control

Preface:

If you think I unfairly pick on Liberals when discussing politics on this blog, here's your chance to see that I'm an equal opportunity hater of misleading politicians. Democrats aren't the only ones trying to completely obscure the purpose for the individual right to keep and bear arms. You may ask, what exactly is that purpose? The answer is that it is the final check and balance to ensure liberty and freedom. It has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with target shooting or "sportsmen". It even is not based solely on my normal pet topic - Personal Protection.

No, our Constitution specifically protected firearm ownership because our system of government was based on the fact that it is supposed to be beholden to the people. If the government oversteps its bounds, it is not only the right of its citizens... it is the duty of its citizens to resist and start anew.

Yes, I said it. We are talking about the possibility of armed revolt in case our government turns to tyranny. I know it sounds crazy to hear that in today's society. Admit it, you got a little squeamish reading it. I know I got a little squeamish writing it. We've been conditioned to think that only crazed unabombers think that way. Try telling that to the people of the 1790's. I find this squeamishness interesting since it was that principle that got our whole Democratic Republic rolling and made our system of governance the envy of the entire world.

If you are unsure of what you just read and would like to hear more... please ask. I can produce hundreds of quotes and citations from every single prominent leader during our country's founding. For now, I'll put forth as proof the first words ever written about our newly formed country. We all read these in school, but did you ever really think about them? Did your teachers explain them?

From The Declaration of Independence:

... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

So... I can now finally get to,


The Actual Topic of This Blog Post:

I fear that I am going to be hard pressed to find a pro-gun candidate for President in 2008. Now, I am not strictly a one-issue voter. However, firearms provide a good litmus test for the Conservative/Libertarian. If a politician ignores my guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, I promise you there are many other topics for which we'll disagree. This is proven by my distaste for the current Republican frontrunners: McCain and Giuliani.

A recent article from Townhall.com recounts Rudolph Giuliani’s anti-gun views. History has repeatedly told the Republican National Committee that a candidate that does not support individual firearm ownership will not be supported by the large majority of their members. Unfortunately, it appears as if the GOP has not yet learned that important lesson.

"I used gun control as mayor," [Giuliani] said at a news conference Saturday during a swing through California. But "I understand the Second Amendment. I understand the right to bear arms."

Unfortunately, Mayor Giuliani quickly proved that he does not understand the Second Amendment. In a feeble attempt to justify his gun control measures, Rudy said that what he did as Mayor “did not affect hunters.” My apologies, Sir, but you need to re-read your history books and the Constitution you swore to uphold. The innate right to bear arms protected by the U.S. Constitution and almost all state constitutions has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. The need for individual firearm ownership is far more important and is easily discernible from the constitutional language itself.

From the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

From Article 1, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution:

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security.

I do not see anything in either of those simple statements that discusses hunting. Rather, they describe the necessity of individual firearm ownership for “the security of a free state” and for our “defense and security.” Is Mayor Giuliani really trying to convince us that our “free state” is threatened by white-tailed deer? Is he honestly trying to tell Ohioans that we need “defense and security” from spring turkeys?

Thankfully, a lot can happen before the primaries and election of 2008. Otherwise, I will have to (for the first time) actually vote my conscience and throw my vote away for a Libertarian candidate.