- But, do I actually exercise all of them?
In the United States of America, you have a few “rights” not
afforded other folks around the Globe. Most of these “rights” are predicated on
your age, and most of these “rights” are illegal for you to engage in if you
are not yet eighteen years old. If you have come of age, in most instances you have the right
to:
·
Vote·
Drink
an alcoholic beverage·
Sign
legally binding documents·
Get
married·
Become
an astronautServe
in the military
·
Own
a firearm·
Get
a legal abortion·
Become
a Federal Legislator·
Become
President·
And,
of course -
- Yup, been there,
too.
This is just a short rendition of a very long list of
“rights” we enjoy as citizens of this Nation. I’m certain that you can easily
add to this list. My point is, just because you have the “right” to do
something, do you actually do it? I can only speak for myself, so I will
attempt to come up with a fairly accurate accounting for some of the “rights” I
do, and don’t, exercise.
·
I
must say that I do vote, and have done so ever since I turned eighteen. I guess
it was instilled in me by my parents, and fortified by my three years of
military service. But, I do find that, military service or not, a vast majority
of people in this Country never have, or will, see the inside of a polling
place. I guess they can’t be bothered, and don’t feel their vote means
anything. In my eyes, this is the largest travesty plaguing our democracy.
· As
far as drinking alcoholic beverages, I kind of jumped the gun on that one. I
was about thirteen when I first imbibed. But, I know people who have never
touched the stuff.
·
The
very first legally binding contract I signed was with the U.S. Army. Since then
there have been many. It’s been my experience that there are a lot of folks who
have never, nor will they ever, sign a legal document during their lifetime.
·
When
it comes to marriage, I’ve been down the aisle three times, and that’s all I’m
going to mention about that. There are certainly those who choose not to marry,
and that statistic is rising at an alarming rate.
·
I’ve
covered the military thing, now I can toss being an astronaut (fear of
heights), becoming President (fear of Republicans), being a Federal Legislator
(fear of Republicans).
- As
far as the question of getting an abortion, first of all I do not possess any of
the needed body parts. But, if I did, I’m can pretty much say for certain that,
with my brand of sexually active lifestyle, I would have opted to exercise that
“right” once, perhaps more.. With my attitude, in general, I would have opened
a can of “whoop-ass” on anybody who tried to stop me. There isn’t a government
or church on the face of this Earth that has the “right” to force a woman to
take a pregnancy to full term. It is her decision, and hers alone. And, if you
don’t have that necessary parts to be a “her”, then you are a “him” and have no
leg to stand on. So, shut up
and sit down!
·
Now
let’s tackle the “right to bear arms”, as per the 2nd Amendment to
our Constitution. Having had the opportunity to play with guns when I was
nineteen, I made the very conscious choice to not bear arms in my tenure as a
civilian (43 years). So, just how Many Americans exercise this “right” to bear
arms? The answer I found was actually more than I would have guessed, but, even
though more people own guns that vote, gun ownership in this Country is
definitely a scourge against our National character.
“Most estimates range
between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun (that's about
43-55 million households). The
estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for
their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning
260 million guns).
Some recent estimates:
- A 2011 Gallup poll estimates that 47 percent of US
households own a gun.
- A 2007 Small Arms Survey estimates there are 88.7 guns per
100 Americans (#1 in the world for guns
per capita)
- A 2010 estimate from the NRA states "Privately owned
firearms in the U.S.: Approaching 300 million, including nearly 100 million handguns.
The number of firearms rises over 4 million annually." [1]
Although our Federal Government downplays the amounts, the
sales of your typical assault rifle reached an all-time high of 100,000
units in 2010 [4]. Why all the
fascination with assault rifles? I can only conclude that everyone who
purchases such a weapon yearns to be in uniform. Take a quick look at a couple
of reviews of the most popular models:
“The M16-A2 is the standard issue rifle. It's carried
by pretty much every soldier in a combat zone. Most people simply call it the
M-16. The M-16 has been around in one version or another since the Vietnam War
(the first version, the M16A1 entered Army service in 1964). Its longevity is
creditable to its usefulness as a general assault weapon. It's quite simply one
of the finest military rifles ever made (although advocates of the M-4 Carbine
may argue with me). The rifle is lightweight, simple to operate, and puts out a
lot of lead.” [2]
”The AK-47
design history started as the Germans had designed and
manufactured the StG44 assault rifle. The German research showed that most fire
fights took place within 300 meters, as the power and range of other weaponry
was excessive for small arm fire fights, armies had the need for a rifle with
submachine gun abilities, like for example large capacity cartridge, and
selective firing. Although the StG44 (Sturmgewehr 44) was not the first assault
rifle to have these features. The Italian Cei-Rigotti and Russian Fedorov
Avtomat where the predecessors.” [3]
I have fired
both these weapons in a relatively humid, hot environment, and I can say with
certainty the AK-47 was the all-around winner. It seemed to tolerate dirt, mud,
and water more successfully than the M16-A2. The M16’s predecessor, the AR15
was a total disaster with constant malfunctions and misfires. The AK-47 is also
more easily field stripped and cleaned. At the time, a thirty round clip was
not made available for the M16-A2. The extra ten rounds made a world of
difference when you needed maximum fire power.
Having said
that, I cannot for the life of me understand, or rationalize, the civilian
ownership of a weapon even remotely similar to these two. I would prefer that
we lived in a Nation and at a time where the ownership of firearms wasn’t at all
necessary. I’m enough of a realist to understand that will never happen as long
male machismo rules the World. Maybe, just maybe, I’ll live long enough to see
what a difference women rulers and leaders would make.
Here are
a few more statistics for all the “stat-geeks” among you:
“In 2009, in a declaration made as part of the court
case Heller v. District of Columbia, which challenged D.C.’s assault weapons ban, NRA
research coordinator Mark Overstreet reported that, from 1986 to 2007, at least 1,626,525 AR-15-style
semi-automatic rifles were produced and not exported from the United States.
Overstreet suggested that you could use trends in NICS
background checks to
project future sales of AR-15-style rifles. As of Nov. 30, 2012, the total number of NICS background checks increased by
50.4 percent since the end of 2007. If the number of AR-15 rifles increased
similarly, then that means there are at least 2,446,294 AR-15 rifles currently
available in the United States.” [5]
“*Correction, December 20, 2012: This post originally and incorrectly referred
to the AR-15 semi-automatic as an "assault rifle." Though the AR-15
could be correctly referred to as an "assault weapon" or an "assault-style
rifle," an "assault rifle" specifically refers to a rifle with
fully automatic firing capability. The language in the post has been corrected
to reflect this distinction.” [5]
“There are no federal restrictions on the ownership of AR-15 rifles
in the United States. During the period 1994–2004 variants with certain
features such as collapsible stocks, flash
suppressors, and bayonet lugs were
prohibited for sales to civilians by the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the included Assault Weapons Ban. Included in this was a restriction on
the pistol grip that protrudes beneath the stock, which was considered an
accessory feature under the ban and was also subject to restrictions. Some
rifles were manufactured with a grip not described under the Ban installed in
its place. Those AR-15s that were manufactured with those features, as well as
the accompanying full capacity magazines, were stamped "Restricted
Military/Government/Law Enforcement/Export Only". The restrictions only
applied to guns manufactured after the ban took effect. It was legal to own,
sell, or buy any gun built before 1994. Hundreds of thousands of pre-ban ARs
were sold during the ban as well as new guns redesigned to be legal.
Since the expiration of the Federal AWB in September 2004,[35] these
features became legal in most states.[36] Since the expiration of the ban, the
manufacture and sale of then-restricted rifles has resumed completely.
At least five states (NY, NJ, CA, MD, CT) regulate possession of
AR-15 rifles either by the restriction of certain features or outright bans of
certain manufacturers' models. For example: the "A3" tactical carbine pictured
above is legal for sale and possession in the United States generally, but is
illegal for sale in California and the Colt AR-15 is banned by name in New
Jersey.” [2]
It
is long past the time for all the idiots and ignoramuses’ in this Country to cease
and desist “cherry-picking” short phrases out of our Constitution and offering
them up as the sole entirety of said Amendment. It is also past the time that
all the rest of the idiots and ignoramuses’ in this Country stop blindly nodding
their tiny little pea-brain heads in acceptance of such abortion.
Every
time the Second Amendment of our Constitution is brought up in conversation of
any sort, the “cherry-picking” comes out; “the right to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed”. That’s it? That’s all they have to offer up in explanation
of why they prefer to keep a virtual arsenal of weapons in their houses and on
their person?
“A well regulated Militia,” ; in
lieu of a formal standing Army, which was not a possibility at the time. When, in
the twenty first century, you are trying to make sense out of this document and
how it may apply to modern-day life, paying attention to the original intent
and environment of the document is paramount.
