Quite a few writers have commented recently about pending gun control proposals.
To the editor:
Quite a few writers have commented recently about pending gun control proposals. The arguments for gun control always appeal to the reader's compassion and cite the incidents where schools have been attacked by a crazy individual or students that have been bullied by others and sought revenge.
Those opposed to gun control appeal on the basis that the control of firearms would accomplish nothing except to remove guns from the individual's defense of self, family, and home.
Recently, columnist Diana West asked the question, "Why does Obama need 1.6 billion bullets?" She pointed out that this is enough to fight an Iraq-type war for 27 years. Also, since many of the rounds being bought are not of the type to fight a war nor for target practice, one has to wonder what the administration intends to use them for. Millions of the rounds are hollow point which are not used in combat against enemy troops.
Our Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment because they knew that a government can become tyrannical such as the British government had become. The possession of equal firearms by large numbers of citizens has long been the only sure way to keep a government in check since a population that is riled up against the government can prevent the authority of the governing class from eliminating the rights of the people. That is actually what happened in our revolution when our ancestors fought the British Army.
We have seen a dramatic erosion of the rights of the people over the course of our history with particular note over the past 12 years since 9/11. Benjamin Franklin said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Should we be concerned? Some think so. The concern is what does the government intend to do. The movie star Clint Eastwood stated that "A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than a gun in the hands of 200 million law-abiding citizens."
Few Republicans and fewer still Democrats have been willing to take a stand against the liberals' demand for reducing the Second Amendment. One Republican, Senator Tom Coburn, has requested clarification of the massive ammunition buy. The answer from DHS admitted that the Department of Homeland Security, the single largest customer in this bullet buy, only used 103 million rounds in 2012 though they are buying 1.6 billion rounds in a one-year contract.
The Bonafide Needs Rule which government procurement employees operate under, limits actual purchases to what can be reasonably required for the current or following one-year period.
Another concerned Republican, Sen. Jim Inhofe has submitted legislation to limit government civilian agencies (not the military) purchases of ammunition to the amount of supplies required before Obama became president. These Republicans appear to be unique since others in their party are ready to compromise on the Second Amendment.
This is a slippery slope – if some limitation of the Second Amendment occurs now, it will make things easier for the governing class to further limit gun ownership in the future if not outright eliminate it, armed with the names of all gun owners.
Even in Kansas, the recently passed Second Amendment Protection Act which supposedly reinforces the Second Amendment is a dangerous thing since it opens the door to reinterpretation. This law exempts all guns that are made in Kansas and have not left the state, from federal gun control. How will that be reinterpreted in the future?
No law is needed and further laws serve only to limit the right under the guise of support. The Conservative Party of the USA (no, not the Republican Party) is standing firm on this issue and accepts NO limitation or erosion of the Second Amendment.
Please contact your legislators and the White House and demand that they also stand equally firm. We don't know what our officials intend. Yet, we do wonder, why does Obama need 1.6 billion bullets?