Why McCann’s decision is more anti-American than anti-gun

Bill Wells Undesignated 8 Comments

Share

I have empathy for John McCann. His city council had the opportunity to vote on making a formal, yet non-binding, resolution to ask for pervasive gun control that would fundamentally change our American society, and in the end, he voted to do just that. I don’t know what he was trying to accomplish by being against the ban and asking for help defeating it, only to apparently change his mind in deliberations and end up voting for it. I do know how difficult and lonely it can be on the dais. I have come to the conclusion that the only way for an elected official to keep the course is to have a set of core principles that are immutable. Some issues are difficult, but most are not, if you know what you believe, and why you believe it.

The Second Amendment is special because it is one of the of principles that formed the guiding light of the American Revolution and the nation that was born out of it. This is the concept of Natural Law. America is special (and I believe that it is blessed), because it is a country that acknowledges that the rights of the people are given by God and not the government. We naturally have the right to live without being harmed or persecuted. We have the right to have property that is ours, and that we can do with what we please. We have the right to earn a living, pursue what makes us happy and to keep the fruits of our labors.

We have the right to defend ourselves against the killer, the rapist, the thief, the tyrant and the tyrannical government, and this is where John McCann really failed. We are all horrified by the pain caused by the psychotic, deranged and agents of evil who use guns as weapons against innocent people. It is tempting to look for an easy answer to this unfathomable problem, but to tear at our natural God given right of self-defense and our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, with which to exert that defense, is to rip at the fabric of what makes America great.

Some argue that a non-binding resolution is meaningless and so the vote is then meaningless. I disagree. A resolution like this is one of the few opportunities in the life of an elected official to stand for something that is greater than himself. Voting to support the concept of weakening the Second Amendment is like voting to support the concept of taking away the right to free speech, or the right to a fair and speedy trial or the right to be protected from unlawful search and seizure laws. It is not just gun control; it is an assault on the foundational place the Constitution has in our American culture and way of life.

Share

Comments 8

  1. Wow Bill.

    It’s a constitution, not the bible.

    “In order to maintain a well regulated militia…”

    There are no militia of one, Bill. The right to bear arms is a communal one, not an individual’s. We’re tired of these one man militia deciding on their own what constitutes tyranny and then go shoot as many Mexicans, Jews, classmates, or concert goers as possible.

    As you said we have a right not to have to live in fear.

  2. As I told Mr. McCann, it was analogous to aiding and abetting the enemy and I was very disappointed in his actions. It is hard to believe that I and so many other gun owners supported his election and then be stabbed in the back after we had obtained the votes required to defeat the resolution. My appreciation to Democrat Councilwoman Galvez for voting against the resolution along with Mike Diaz.

  3. Mud anonymously stated, “…we have a right not to have to live in fear.” Technically, the natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not a supernatural promise to experience no fear. However, disarming a population of the most effective means with which to defend themselves, individually or corporately, is reasonable cause for living in increased fear. This is quite the opposite of eliminating fear.

    For example, I have trained in hand to hand fighting, combat arms, tactics and the science of conflict on all scales from personal to global for nearly four decades. I won a martial arts world championship in 1997. I have provided professional combat skills instruction for decades to students ranging from single moms to sheriff’s deputies, Marine riflemen to SEALs. I am fast and exquisitely precise with a firearm, but am also adept at wielding a baton or stick, a blade from 3 inches to 3 feet long, a myriad of more exotic weapons, and of course my empty hands.

    Against a person with my training and abilities, the vast majority of civilians and even most professional law enforcement and trained military personnel have little hope of defending themselves effectively should they be attacked, unarmed. What hope do you have, Mud, if a person like me physically attacked you?

    Civilized society relies on everyone living together observing some fundamental courtesies of civil behavior, including live and let live. Should a stronger, faster, better-trained person choose you as their victim, you have little innate ability to prevent whatever happens next, and “next” will certainly happen long before help from law enforcement arrives.

    “Mud” may choose to believe that if s/he simply chooses to live a live of peace, unarmed, that everyone else will follow suit. Sadly, this head-in-the-Utopian-sand strategy does not work in real life. Others are not choosing to live peacefully by the rules of polite society – and the weapons they use in the overwhelming majority of attacks are NOT GUNS, which fundamentally disproves the idea that guns are the problem.

    Further, one’s head has to be stuck pretty deep in the “Mud” to believe that any kind of law whatsoever would result in the elimination of the approximately 50-75 million semiautomatic rifles in the US, or the nearly half-a-billion firearms in the US overall. The United States would cease to exist as we know it before those guns will be taken from their owners, so to speak of it as an option worth considering is nonsensical.

    I can teach someone in an afternoon – even a person with major physical disabilities – to effectively defend themselves against an attacker, just with the aid of a quality, highly effective firearm like the AR-15. An afternoon’s training with a modern sporting rifle or a day with a handgun is enough for the aforementioned single mom (for example) to gain a basic level of technical proficiency to have the potential to overcome even the most physically overwhelming attacker.

    When I see people like Mud misinterpret the 2A as only a communal right and not an individual right, I extrapolate that they are unintentionally advancing a misogynistic agenda, among other evils. This may seem a stretch of logic on the surface, until you bear out the argument to its logical conclusion. The meek, the martially untrained, the fairer and the gentler portion of a disarmed population have the least ability to defend themselves. A vote against the 2A is a vote against Liberty in all its forms, because it is a vote against the protection of that Liberty – against the defense of Life itself. A person exercising their constitutionally-protected right to individually bear arms is one who is best able to defend themselves from threats.

    “Why do you carry a gun all the time? What the hell are you afraid of?”
    “Nothing. I am carrying a gun.”

    Guns are used exponentially more often for good – to save innocent lives – than for evil.

    PS: Mud, Google “Who is the militia” and read the wealth of contextual, contemporary writings of what that means, as well as what “well regulated” means. Read the corresponding sections of the constitutions of Missouri, Montana, Colorado, and a half dozen others, which spell out “keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property.” I don’t believe the “only in an organized militia” argument survives even a cursory study of the primary source material surrounding the writing of the Constitution. Coxe. Hamilton. Henry. Jefferson. R.H. Lee. Madison. Mason. Paine. Rawle. Story. Washington. Ask them.

  4. Post
    Author

    Mud,
    The term Militia referred to all white males over the age of 18. This of course is out dated and would now mean all people over the age of 18. I do doggedly cling to the Constitution because America is by far the most successful government in the history of the world and adherence to the Constitution appears to be the reason.

  5. Thank you, Bill, for honoring your sworn oath to protect and defend our constitution and our rights guaranteed therein and your dedication to the protection of our citizens. Those who would give up Liberty , in the hope of attaining security, will achieve neither (as I believe was stated by one of our founding fathers). Worse, those who seek to end “gun violence” do themselves and others a disservice by focusing on the ” gun” instead of the “violence”. Enforce existing laws against violent behavior to the maximum extent possible. Realize that no law will prevent criminal activity by those who, by definition, disobey laws. Finally, those who dishonor their sworn oath must be relieved of any public responsibility and promptly removed from any office they hold.

  6. “Its a constitution, not a bible”…actually it’s a Bill of Rights which describe the natural rights of mankind that government cannot impose upon.

  7. I am highly disappointed that he did this. SDCGO endorsed him, then he turned his back to us. I do believe his career as a Republican has come to a close. My grandfather was one of many of thousands of Americans who fought for our freedoms and to encroach on our constitutional rights is appalling and down right wrong. Perhaps he should go back and read the oath he took when he entered office and think long and hard what it means to be an American. Maybe he can find peace in that, once again, because now more than ever the red, white and blue means more to me than power, money or fame could ever! This is our home, this is our people, every one is loved, protect it or leave it, Mental health is an issue, instead of looking at the problem seek the solution, it’s time to take care of the mentally ill with compassion and care.

  8. “The right to bear arms is a communal one, not an individual’s.”

    Oh good grief. I don’t know where to begin. I’ll point you to DC v Heller

    Scalia outlined the history of the #2A as an individual right in the Court’s opinion and Stevens stipulated as much in his dissent

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *