IF THE GOVERNMENT WON'T DEFEND
                       2ND AMENDMENT, PEOPLE MUST


   "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."

   The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly states
   the right of the American people to keep and bear arms, but lately
   this right has come under fire from the news media, the federal
   government and many of the American people.

   The media have portrayed firearms in an increasingly negative light,
   attempting to show them as the cause of crime rather than the
   instrument of criminals and law-abiding citizens.  This sentiment has
   been taken to heart by the U.S. government, manifesting itself as the
   Brady bill and the new crime bill.  These bills are a direct affront
   to the Constitution, which government officials are sworn to support
   and defend.

   The government has neglected its responsibility to defend the
   Constitution, so I am forced to pick up the gauntlet and take the
   defense of the Constitution upon myself.  In order to defend the
   Second Amendment one must know what it is being defended against.
   There are two arguments that I most hear most [sic] often when people
   are attacking the Second Amendment.

   The first is that the criminal is becoming better armed than the cop.
   Due to this, many people feel it necessary to have laws made against
   arms.  Such laws serve only to keep these arms out of the hands of
   law-abiding citizens.  Why should a person going out to commit a
   robbery, a murder, or any other violent crime hesitate for one second
   to use an illegal firearm?  In making a law against firearms, the
   government has served only to ensure that the criminal is better
   armed than the rest of the populace as well as the police.

   Cesare Beccaria, an 18th century criminologist, may have summed it up
   best when he said: "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."

   The second argument is that the weapons banned are weapons of war
   used only to kill.  For this reason, people assume that no decent
   citizen should want to possess one.  These people are gravely
   mistaken.  The purpose of the Second Amendment as described within
   itself is to ensure the security of a free state.  Possessing arms
   provides for security from threats from within as well as without.

   Even though Americans do not like to admit it, governments do go bad.
   For example, look at Haiti, a country that was democratic until
   overthrown by a military coup from within.  I do not foresee a
   serious threat to the United States from within or without in the
   near future, but if one does arise I want to have every weapon
   possible.

   There is something else I often hear when people are attacking the
   Second Amendment.  It is not an attack on the amendment but is,
   instead, a defense of such attacks.  It seems that many people
   believe the amendment to apply only to the militia, not the general
   populace.  This confusion seems to arise from the fact that the word
   militia is used in the amendment.  However, the reference to the
   militia appears only as a precursor to the amendment explaining why
   the right to keep and bear arms is necessary.

   Even if the Second Amendment did say that the right to keep and bear
   arms is only for the militia, which it does not, many people consider
   the entire populace to be the militia.  As George Mason said at
   Virginia's ratification convention in 1788, "I ask, sir, what is the
   militia?  It is the whole people.  To disarm the people is the best
   and most effectual way to enslave them."

   By now, any advocates of these anti-gun laws who are reading this
   article are probably wondering what I propose should be done to stem
   violent crime around the state and throughout the country.  The
   answer is simple.  Provide for a well-trained, well-manned and well-
   armed police force.  Promote honesty in sentencing for crimes by
   doing away with parole for criminals.

   To say that someone is sentenced to serve life in prison when he will
   get out in 15 years is deceptive.  If a judge thinks that a crime
   only deserves 15 years, then let him sentence the criminal to 15
   years.

   Perhaps  most importantly, justice must become swift once again.  As
   guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, trials should be speedy.  I
   believe that the carrying out of a sentence should be swift.
   Criminals should not be allowed to languish on death row for 20 years
   and endless appeals should be stopped.  If someone is sentenced to
   death, execute them.

   The purpose of laws against firearms is supposed to be that the
   people compromise a little of their rights to obtain safety.  In
   reference to people who advocate this kind of compromise, Benjamin
   Franklin said, "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a
   little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

   It is time that law-abiding citizens stand up for themselves.  If we
   do not defend our rights, none will defend them.  If we yield, we
   will be more and more pressured as we recede; and if we submit, we
   will be trampled underfoot.

   Jonathan Marc Ingram
   Cedartown


... Assault Weapons: devices for hunting down Tyrants!
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

--- SLMAIL v4.0a  (#2532)
 * Origin: Fallout BBS :: Tuscaloosa, AL :: 205/752-7646 :: (1:3606/6)
0SEEN-BY: 376/178 206 396/1 3606/6 10 527 3615/50 51
0PATH: 3606/6 10 3615/50 376/178