Why Americans Should Not Be Restricted From Owning Fully Automatic Weapons.. Part II
Imagine. Imagine that you are a member of a small group of people who joined together to form a “more perfect union”. Let’s go one step further and stipulate that this group is what we now call an indigenous tribe. Your days consist of following one of the great herds of bison across the American Great Plains with your very existence dependent on your prowess in hunting and killing one of these great beasts as their carcasses provide everything from the sinew you use as thread to the meat which you consume as your main form of sustenance. Assuming you are a full member of the tribe, on what basis are you forbidden to possess whatever particular weapon happens to be in existence at the time?
In other words, on what basis are you determining who is “us” and who is “them”? When each individual member of the tribe is assumed to have all the rights and the responsibilities of every other member, is not the survival of the society based on the strength and fidelity of each and every one of its’ individual members? We have the Second Amendment because every able bodied male is assumed to be an equal and responsible member of “the militia and our strength is deemed to be derived from our ability to field an army of these citizen soldiers, not from a separate and elite standing army of professional soldiers.
The debate is not over hunting, or even personal protection. The debate is over whether Americans are full fledged participating citizens of the republic or whether they are subjects of those who would govern them.
Think about it. I had originally considered another frame of reference, but having started down this path it seemed to me that not much needed to be said.