Opinion: What Made Possible the Foundation of America -- the Gun -- Won Our Independence, So Why Take It Away?

(Above: Graphic with a picture of  Nazi Germany dictator Adolf Hitler, along with his infamous quote.)

Prologue: The Debate and Fight over Gun Control

One of the great debates in America today that has increased in its intensity is the issue of gun control.  Should guns be legal to own by the American people or should they not?  Does the ownership of guns serve as a deterrent to our government becoming tyrannical or does it not?  By owning guns, does this make Americans safer from violent crime or does it not?  Finally, is the Second Amendment, which guarantees all Americans the right to bear arms, now obsolete or is it still relevant?  This has been an argument that has raged for decades, yet until now, with the exception of the Brady Crime Bill that President Bill Clinton rammed through Congress during his first term as president, the status of the Second Amendment has remained relatively unchallenged.  In December 2012, the Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre occurred, prompting many liberals to take action by looking to curtail the legal rights of Americans by calling for expanded background checks, a national firearms registry, and a ban on a class of automatic assault rifles.  Of course, conservatives, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), have stood their ground, and through the Republicans in the Senate voting as a block to prevent the passage of any and all gun control legislation that would be signed into law by President Barack Obama that was up for vote last month, the attempt of the Democrats to pass this legislation that would be the first of many future measures attempting to undermine the Second Amendment was defeated.  Currently, Sen. Joe Munchin (D-WV) is attempting to resurrect the bill by rewording the language of the bill in the hope that some Republicans will cross over and vote for gun control, but Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has said that it is unlikely the bill will be revisited by the Senate.

In the previous eight blog entries, I have explained how the Democratic lawmakers and their liberal constituents have several times assaulted the Constitution by attempting to ignore its directives and created legislation in such a fashion that there appears to be one Constitution and then another system of public governance strongly resembling the form of British Common Law.  The British government has no hard-copy constitution, but rather a list a mile long of laws and statutes built upon other laws and statutes based on tradition.  By doing this, the British Parliament may create any law it so chooses in accordance to the tradition set forth in the past.  The Democrats would love to do this because they could then pass legislation ad infinitum with total and complete impunity since there would be no system of checks and balances such as what exists in the Constitution we have.  The purpose for the Founding Fathers to create the Constitution was simple: it wanted to avoid a parliamentary system of government such as existed in Great Britain even as early as the 18th Century by limiting the role of government in the lives of the American people for the present and futures generations to come, as well as to create a tiered federal system of republican government whereby, as mentioned before, there would be a system of checks and balances between three branches of the federal government, plus a list of guaranteed rights intended never to be violated by any tier of the American system of government.  

For the first 100 years, the American people accepted this form of government with open arms, and the people were far more independent during the first century of the republic than our society is today.  In an article I read on the website called The Federalist Papers, the phenomena behind the great change in the American people's view of the role of government is explained.  Americans in the years of the early republic were more aware of civic matters and therefore performed their civic duties to a great extent without questioning it.  They felt that the government as guaranteed by our Founders within the confines of the Constitution gave them the greatest chance of being free because so many rights were guaranteed within the Bill of Rights.  America was founded upon the following principles as I have explained in other blog entries: God, gold, and glory.  The first English colony in the New World that stuck was settled in 1607 with the founding of Jamestown in present day Virginia for the purpose of making money for the English crown, as the main method of doing this was cultivating the cash crop tobacco.  Some 13 years later, Plymouth, in what is currently Massachusetts, was founded by the Pilgrims for the purpose of creating a society whereby their religion -- the Congregationalist Church -- would be free to be worshiped.  For over 400 years, Americans have lived by this creed, and there is one thing that ties these settlements together, what made it possible for them becoming settlements: the presence of firearms. 

In the era of the English New World, owning a gun was a necessity.  First of all, there were not any previously-built cities, towns, or villages to welcome the settlers, so the first societies that were established in English America relied on the settlers' abilities to hunt and cultivate land for agriculture.  It also meant that the settlers had to have guns to defend the colony against Indian raids.  While the issue of class warfare did not exist in Puritan New England, it did in Jamestown, Virginia because of importation and usage of African slaves.  As we have seen, the foundation of English America occurred because the people wanted religious freedom, a new land in which to achieve economic success for the individual, and last but not least the reason all of these were possible to manifest was because men had rifles and muskets (guns) in order to hunt and protect their families and property.

Guns and the Phenomenon Behind Many American's Identifying More with the French Revolution than the American Revolution

The American revolutionary spirit has gradually waned since about 1876, and according to another article on The Federalist Papers, the average American today identifies more with the principles governing the French Revolution than those of the American Revolution, the first of its kind in the history of mankind. Let us not forget, either, that the liberties the patriots who fought the American Revolution achieved for us are located in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment right to bear arms, which the Founding Fathers considered a natural right of man handed down by God. John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson explaining his opinion of what were the key differences in philosophy between the two pivotal events in the history of Western civilization:

"No man is more sensitive than I am of the service to science and letters, humanity, fraternity, and liberty, that would have been rendered by the encyclopedists and economists, by Voltaire, D'Alembert, Buffon, Diderot, Rousseau, La Lande, Frederic and Catherine, if they had possessed common sense... And what was their philosophy?  Atheism, -- pure, unadulterated atheism.  Diderot, D'Alembert, Frederic, La Lande, and Grimm, were indubitable atheists. The universe was master only, and eternal.  Spirit was a word without meaning.  Liberty was a word without meaning.  There was no liberty in the universe; liberty was a word void of sense.  Every thought, word, passion, sentiment, feeling, all motion and action was necessary.  All beings and attributes were of eternal necessity; conscience, fate, were all nothing but fate.  This was their creed, and this was to perfect human nature, and convert the earth into a paradise of pleasure."

Furthermore, in the same letter, Adams explains why the French revolutionaries failed to establish their will of an atheist society when he said, "...they had not considered the force of early education on the minds of millions, who had never heard of their society."  He also said this: "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were -- the general principles of Christianity and the general principles of English and American liberty."  And as the author of this article Bill Fortenberry further asserts:

"Unlike the empty promises of the French, the freedom of America was founded on the recognition of  two distinct yet complimentary sets of laws -- the law of nature and the Law of nature's God." 

Shortly after the American Revolution, James Wilson, who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, taught his law students this important principle:

"That law, which God has made for man in his present state; that law, which is communicated to us by reason and conscience, the divine monitors within us, and by the sacred oracles, the divine monitors without us.  This law has gone through several subdivisions, and has been known by distinct appellations, according to the different way in which it has been promulgated,  and the different objects which it respects.  As promulgated by reason and the moral sense, it has been called natural; as promulgated by the holy scriptures it has been called revealed law."

Wilson also wrote:

"That our Creator has a supreme right to prescribe a law for our conduct, and we are under the most perfect obligation to obey that law, are truths established on the clearest and most solid principles."

As well as this:

"Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine." 

So, two members of the fraternity of America's Founders, in their writings, confirm what I wrote above: that one of the key reasons and foundations of the establishment of our great republic upon which our revolution was fought was a manifest destiny, or God-given bestowal of a destiny predicated upon liberty.

• However, the American people in general have forgotten these important details concerning the key ingredients behind what America's Continental Army and the Founding Fathers fought for in separating the American colonies from the mother country and securing the blessings of liberty governed by what Fortenberry wrote as "the law of nature and the Law of nature's God."  In comparing Adam's description of the atheist revolutionaries and philosophes in France, let us read what Richard Dawkins once wrote:

"In a universe of blind physical force and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, some people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.  The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

Thus, we can conclude that the majority of Americans identify with the element of the French Revolution that relinquishes society of its duties to live responsibly because having faith in God requires constant attention to detail and much practice, as well as the platform upon which God derives His authority to institute liberty and the rights of man.  All of these, as we see, have long been forgotten as being the very essences over which the patriots in the American Revolution fought because Americans identify more with the concept of atheism as the occupying force governing American values as opposed to the two qualities Fortenberry wrote of.  This culture has been born and fostered meticulously over the course the past 50 years by the atheists in American society who learned from the oversight the French revolutionaries made of failing to account the fact that the French people -- peasants, sans cullottes, or the figures making up the First, Second, and Third Estates -- had already been socialized and conditioned in Roman Catholicism for many centuries and thus would not be easily persuaded to change their identity as Christians.  The New Atheists, as Fortenberry calls them, promise today's Americans a society free of God and the restrictions of religion -- and thus, the concept of responsibilities to the our neighbors within the community and our family units that Christianity teaches us we all have as our religious duties.  It is no coincidence, therefore, that the causes and platforms of society the New Atheists promote are supported by the Democratic party, who I have said in prior posts controls most media outlets and, therefore, the cultural dynamics of America.

The interesting thing behind living in a godless society is that the New Atheists took one of the fundamental directives of the Constitution -- that of the free exercise of one's religion -- and manipulated it to accommodate their own devious agenda.  This is a typical political strategy of the liberal lunatic fringe: to take a seemingly simple-to-understand concept and then stretch it a mile.  These New Atheists such as Madeline Murray O'Hare, first began to attack the mandatory practices of prayer and biblical recitations in public schools.  In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Engel v. Vitale that it is unconstitutional to require students in public schools to pray; the following year, O'Hare brought her case before the High Court known to history as Abingdon School District v. Schemmp, which resulted in the liberal justices ruling in her favor to declare mandatory biblical recitations in public schools to be unconstitutional, which ended the practice.  Throughout the past two generations, the New Atheists have succeeded in getting federal courts to require government edifices to remove such Judeo-Christian likenesses as inscriptions of the Ten Commandments because in the minds of the liberal judicial activists, it violates the constitutional law of separation of church and state.  Rather than going to the trouble of engaging their congressmen on the issues, the phenomenon of judicial activism has become the choice for social reconstruction of the America Left.

Correlating and Comparing Rousseau's The Social Contract, the Divine Right of Kings, and the American Democratic-Republic 

Of the listed philosophes of the Enlightenment, I have only ever read The Social Contract  (1762) by Jean Jacques Rousseau.  I was truly horrified and shocked to read of his philosophy that all people of a nation-state are bound by their implicit agreement to the "social contract" to abide by the "general will" that is carried out by "the sovereign" lest they be "forced to be free."  It became very clear to me that this was the very first piece of political theory to influence and advocate the platforms and policies the Left today practice.  The Social Contract also was the literature that most influenced the revolutionaries of the French Revolution, which was operated by left-wing radicals who acted to overthrow the French monarchy and end the feudal system that had been in place for centuries using the rallying cry of "Liberte, egalite, fraternite" ("Liberty, equality, fraternity").  Some historians point out that the revolution brought out in the French people "a fundamental transformation in self-identity, evidenced by the elimination of privileges and their replacement by rights as well as the growing decline in social deference that highlight the principle of equality throughout the Revolution."  Furthermore, the Revolution "represented the most significant and dramatic challenge to political absolutism up to that point in history and spread democratic ideals throughout Europe and ultimately the world."  However, that account is no doubt a tribute paid to militant subversive action and class warfare by an analyst sympathetic to the cause despite the atrocities committed by its participants that resulted in the deaths of at least  16,594 French citizens under the guillotine or other methods of execution after accusations of counter-revolutionary activities during the "Reign of Terror." French historian Francois Furet said the Revolution was the first example of totalitarian political ideas, as well as the legitimization of large-scale violence waged against social classes considered undesirable.  Such an event, which again was influenced by Rousseau's The Social Contract, no doubt was the building block for future left-wing intellectual thought for political theorists such as Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, who co-authored The Communist Manifesto (1848), and captured the imaginations of the Bolsheviks during the Russian Revolution and Mao Zedong in his ideas to rally the peasants during the Chinese Civil War.  

The political difference between what the European philosophes' vision of a perfect society compared to the great American experiment and triumph, if one listens to Adams, Jefferson, and Wilson, is all too clear in its origins. European nations as of the late 18th Century had always been governed under the principle of the "divine right of kings," while America, despite being ruled by a king in England under that same principle, had lived 5,000 miles away from the land of the king and the subordinate subjects of society below him.  To put it in simpler terms, European governance had always been dictated by birthright and noble title; American democracy was based on the principles of a pure, unadulterated meritocracy.  America's ancestors had always lived under what amounted to being a government of absolutism and authorianism, while the new nation, even in its fledgling years of existence, held town hall meetings in which the villagers spoke up on the policies that were to be passed into law, implemented, and thus enforced.  From that, we can conclude that the principles of democratic governance had existed as early as the first part of the 17th Century.

Exposing the Democrats' Attempts and Successes at Using Socialist Logic to Deny the People their Constitutional Rights, Including the Second Amendment

So, what does this mean for the gun control debate?  Well, the Founding Fathers, who governed their principles by the "laws of nature and the Law of nature's God" according to Fortenberry, begat to the new nation their competency for drafting both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on how to decide what laws would guarantee a more free republic.  This included their convictions in authoring the list of legal rights each and every American citizen were guaranteed, which, among them, was the right to bear arms.  As was mentioned earlier in this article, the gun was the primary tool that led to the expansion of these United States from its first two colonies to its present-day existence as a nation stretching from "sea to shining sea."  The British tried to take away the ammunition of the American colonists in Lexington, Massachusetts, demanding from the colonists, "Disperse, you villains! -- lay down your arms!"  The colonists, however, refused, having successfully hidden the ammunition, and shortly thereafter, the American Revolution started with the fighting at Lexington on April 18, 1775.  The culture associated with the threat of tyranny rising from the mandatory submission of firearms to the government began with that event.  Other events in world history suggest this very thing would happen should compulsory submission of firearms be implemented; Adolf Hitler is famous for saying, "To conquer a nation first disarm its citizens."  The Democrats want to eradicate the Second Amendment along with four others (First, Third, Fourth, and Tenth Amendments) because the combination of those four laws prevents them from being able to rule every aspect of the people's lives.  One of the Democrats' favorite tactics, as I have pointed out in previous blog entries, is to use the excuse of compelling the American people to relinquish some of their rights under the pretense that they, as the prevailing party both in majority as well as the most intelligent segment of our society, will take care of people through the implementation of socialist policies aimed at perpetuating the myth of class warfare.  The Democrats have convinced the people in major cities that the rampant violent crime their neighborhoods are experiencing are caused by firearms, almost to the point of saying that the firearms, which are inanimate objects, commit the crimes themselves. These people, many of whom are ignorant or lacking in intelligence due to being kept poor because of the Democrats' policy of subsidizing them rather than creating jobs for them which often leads to wrecked home lives and a lack of emphasis on become well-educated, are to be kept this way in order to create a demographic largely dependent on them for their social and financial welfare. It is this method used by the Democrats in such cities as Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., that has resulted in the outlawing of guns within those urban areas.  Despite this political victory for the Democratic lawmakers in those three cities, the rate of violent crime attributed to guns actually rose dramatically.

According to article from May 6, 2010 in the independent news service Newsmax, the real truth about how the banning of the possession of firearms in Chicago and Washington, D.C., are revealed using empirical data:

• From January 1 though Sunday, May 2, 2010, the city of Chicago had racked up 113 homicides, an increase over the previous year's total of 101 over the same period of time.
• Since 1982, Chicago has banned the private ownership of guns.  Over the next 19 years, there were only three years where the murder rate was as low as when the ban started.  Let me emphasize the part where this statistic said as low because that does not mean the murder rate was lower.
• John Lott, the article's author as well as the author of the book More Guns, Less Crime, provided statistics in the book's third edition that prior to the ban, Chicago's murder rate was falling relative to the nine other largest cities, the 50 largest cities, the five counties bordering Cook County, as well as the U.S. as a whole.  After the ban, however, the city's murder rate rose relative to all other places.
• After the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that lifted the city of Washington, D.C.'s ban on the possession of guns and, even more importantly, let citizens keep their guns unlocked so that they were able to be used in District of Columbia v. Heller, the city's murder rate decreased by 25%, the lowest rate the city had experienced since the 1960's.

Katie Pavlich of Townhall.com reported on December 11, 2012 in the aftermath of NBC sportscaster Bob Costas' rant about the dangers of guns in the wake of the tragic murder-suicide of former NFL linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs Jovan Belcher of various liberal talking heads in the media such as Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, as well as other anti-gun advocacy groups about European nations with strict gun control laws do not endure the problems associated with violent crime as does the United States.  Furthermore, Pavlich said that the liberals tell the American people that the reason with have "gun crime problems" is because the people of America are guaranteed the right to bear arms in accordance to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.  The liberals always point to Great Britain as the shining example of what our society, which should be free of guns, should be like.  It is at this point that Pavlich provides a list of data that debunks every liberal's assertion that a nation whose citizens are denied the right to own firearms is safer than those that do.

Consider these numbers on gun-related crimes for Great Britain:

• New data out of the United Kingdom (UK), where guns are banned, shows that gun crime has soared by 35% in England and Wales.  The government's latest figures were condemned by the Tories (Conservatives) as "truly terrible."
• Criminals used handguns in 46% more offenses, Home Office statistics revealed.
• Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes to last April, up from 7,362.
• It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993. 
• Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.
• Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said: "These figures are truly terrible.... Despite the street crime initiative, robbery is massively up. So are gun-related crimes, domestic burglary, retail burglary, and drug offenses. The only word for this is failure: the Government's response of knee-jerk reactions, gimmicks and initiatives is not working and confused sentences for burglary will not help either.  The figures will continue to be dreadful until the Government produces a coherent long term strategy to attack crime at its roots and get police visibly back on the streets." Gun crime would not be cracked until gangs were broken up and the streets "reclaimed for the honest citizen by proper neighborhood policing," he said.

Pavlich then says that at least some people are talking about what to do to address this issue by promising to "attacking crime at its roots" by focusing on criminals because after all, guns are already banned in Great Britain, and no one can blame the guns for shooting themselves, though members of the Left in both Great Britain and the United States have been known to come really close to saying that guns are the core of the problem, not the would-be-shooters.  The data provided above by Pavlich is from 2003, and at the end of the article, she provides newer data from 2009 along with some interesting revelations into what political party was in power at the time of the disturbing numbers that were reported by the British government:

• Gun violence has almost doubled since Labour (Britain's left-wing party) came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.
• The latest government figures show that the total number of firearm offenses in England and Wales has  increased from 5,209 in 1998-1999 to 9,865 last year (2008) -- a rise of 89%.
• In some parts of Great Britain, the number of offenses has risen five-fold. 
• In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.
• The statistic has fueled fears among the law-abiding British citizens that the nation's police force are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place.

In a tone of written sarcasm, Pavlich concludes her section on the updated statistics on British gun crimes by saying, "The only good guys who have guns in this case are the bad guys, since guns are banned for the good guys in the UK." This is truly not the news the Labour party in Britain wanted to hear.

Meanwhile, just as more and more people are becoming gun owners in the U.S., the rate of violent crime has gone down.  If this is the case, how can it be when the majority of violent crimes committed in America were done using firearms?  Let us analyze this some more with more data provided by Pavlich:

• Violent crime in the United States fell for the fifth consecutive year in 2011 with murder, rape, and robbery all going down, although crime remains a serious problem in many urban areas, according to the FBI.
• The reported of all crimes reported to police nationwide showed slightly more than 1.2 million violent incidents nationwide, while property crimes hit a nine year low. 
• Compared with 2010,. the new figures show violent crime down 3.8% overall.  Property crime was down 0.5%,
• Among violent incidents reported to police, murders were down about 0.7%, robberies dropped 4%, aggravated assaults declined 3.9%, and forcible rapes were down 2.5%.
• Washington, D.C., finished the year with fewer than 100 murders for the first time since 1963, and neighboring Prince George's County posted its lowest homicide total in 25 years.
• The District of Columbia, it should be noted, was the "murder capital of America" two decades ago, but at the time of this report, it had experienced only 79 murders to that point in the year according to police reports.  The annual number has been declining since 2008 after the Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller overturned the city's ban on the possession of guns.  This total is a far cry from the five years in the late 1980's and early 1990's where the number of homicides never dropped below 400.

(Above: Graph showing the number of murders committed in the Washington, D.C.-area from 1985 to 2012.)

Pavlich adds that for future reference, people studying the graph should keep in mind that Fairfax, Alexandria, and Arlington are all located in Virginia, a state that allows concealed carry of handguns with a permit.  The chart above also shows these areas have always had the lowest crime rates compared to Washington, D.C., and Maryland where concealed carry is either banned or extremely difficult to do lawfully.

While there were law-abiding citizens who obeyed the law and submitted their weapons to the city authorities, many did not, and it is probable that many criminals are purchasing guns on the black market.  It is therefore ironic how the nation of the United Kingdom (Great Britain) and the cities of Chicago and Washington, D.C., all have experienced extreme rates of violent crime where guns were used despite the governing bodies of those places taking the people's right to possess firearms away, and how the District of Columbia has seen a steep decline in violent crimes such as murder after the High Court's position in Heller overturned the ban on the possession of firearms in the city.  An armed people is a responsible people, and while there will inevitably be a segment of the population who will act illegally and irresponsibly with a gun, the law-abiding citizens with guns will negate their impact on the way the gun is perceived to affect society.

My father oft warns me about the Democrats' attack on the Second Amendment, for it is this issue about which he is most concerned since he is a gun enthusiast.  He has warned me repeatedly that should the Democrats succeed in repealing the Second Amendment, there will be "a bloodbath."  If the military is dispatched to collect the weapons, it will be a failed political directive because while the soldiers in the U.S. Armed Forces are sworn to serve the President of the United States, they will encounter their fathers, who too have guns, and there will be a "come-to-Jesus" meeting between the civilian fathers and their military sons, which will mean the military will not carry out its mission.  However, Dad is convinced that the federal government will dispatch agents from the Office of Homeland Security to do the President's bidding, and unlike the military officers, that branch of the government has absolutely no scruples.  Homeland Security is tantamount to the Secret Police and Gestapo used by Hitler to persecute and apprehend the Jews in Nazi Germany.  Still, in my father's eyes, there is no way the U.S. military, as mighty and powerful as it is, could defeat an army of 80 million gun owners nationwide.  This country would experience the first revolution in over 200 years in a struggle that would pit the conservative right-wing freedom fighters against the liberal left-wing dictatorship.  No longer would this country be governed by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights because the Democrats will have totally trashed it, but rather by martial law.  

(Above: The official seal of the National Rifle Association, or better known as the NRA.  America needs the NRA more so now than it ever has before, as our government has never been more liberal and oppressive than it is today.)

Conclusion: The Summation of the Article and a Dire Warning of Revolution Should they Democrats Act Upon Their Desires to Repeal the Second Amendment

Such is the example of what Rousseau's concept of a covenant between the individual implicitly agreeing to the "social contract" requiring that person submit to the "general will" of the collective governed by "the sovereign" that leads to the ultimate questions of "What is the 'general will' of society, and from what do we derive the source of this governing apparatus known as 'the sovereign'?"  Taking into account the fact that American democratic-republicanism was founded upon "the law of nature and the Law of nature's God,"  the right to bear arms was, in the eyes of the Founders, a liberty bestowed to the free peoples of the world -- the American people -- by God, and thus, it is a God-given right we all have.  What is interesting, though, is how people have forgotten the principles under which the American Revolution was fought and how they seem to have identified more with the French Revolution, which was fought by left-wing extremist revolutionaries guaranteeing liberty and democracy just as our revolution did, but there was one big difference in the philosophies behind the world's first two political revolutions: the American Revolution was fought under the promise that the American people, upon achieving independence from Great Britain, would be guaranteed a government whose principles would guide it to operate under the supposition that our liberties are guaranteed to us by the laws of nature and nature's God; while the French Revolution was fought  the first conflict involving class warfare in world history through dismantling the monarchy's and Roman Catholic Church's places of prominence in French society in order to created a democracy based on the principles of "liberty, equality, and fraternity" through the pursuit of an atheist society where there was no such thing as class, only what Rousseau became the first political philosopher to ever use the term known as the "proletariat" in order to convert society into what Adams termed "a paradise of pleasure." The Left in Western nations has always operated with the understanding that the poor, underprivileged, and socially-persecuted masses of society give it the sole political legitimacy necessary to govern as it sees fit, with no acknowledgement of their being any laws of nature and natures God that either did so or, to a greater extreme, ever existed in the first place.  As a result, the Left in the United States -- the Democratic party -- does not respect the doctrine upon which the Founding Fathers established the Constitution of the United States of America and its Bill of Rights, neither of which would have happened without the brave patriots fighting for these rights in the American Revolution as well as the brilliance of the Founding Fathers instituting this spirit of liberty into the new nation's legal code.  And because the Democrats respect neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights, they will attempt to say that the right to bear arms is not a God given right, that it goes against nature for a people in a society to possess such things as guns that can be used to kill others, including the agents of the government should the people feel the urge to rebel after the laws become disagreeable to the public.  Thus, the Democrats, who are godless on the premise they claim to be that the Constitution forbids all pretenses of religiosity in government policy by confusing such fact with the folly that it is more in line with the philosophies perpetuated by the French Revolution, will use this very idea to support their claim that the American people did not derive their right to bear arms or any other constitutional freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights based on "the Law of nature's God," but by the qualities of an atheist "general will" created by humans, and that the government, which serves as "the sovereign," has the authority based on the mandate derived by the "social contract" the governed implicitly agreed to to collect their weapons.  To do so would destroy the symbol of what made America great in the colonial era, what made America great in the days of the early republic, and what makes this country great today, for it is the democratic spirit of the American people that lend our system of government its legitimacy to govern by dent of their votes during elections.

The bottom line is this: the gun won our independence and expanded our nation due to its "manifest destiny." If the Democrats attempt to either take away our firearms or seriously curtail the right to purchase and own them in any fashion, there will be consequences for their actions, up to and including the first revolution America will have experienced in 230 years.