[jbgroby]

Hello All,

I’ll chime in here at the risk of possibly offending someone – not my intention and I’ll cover several issues we face. For every line of reasoning I put forth below, there is probably a counter argument……. I speak from the ‘Point of View’ as an elected official, who has had to deal with limiting our citizens’ right to bear arms, BTW I was able to kill the Ordinance before it was brought to the floor.


First, let me say that I so strongly believe in Term Limits, that I imposed a 2 term limit on myself (St. Tammany Parish Council has no term limits). This SUBJECT may be the ONE thing that will break the logger jam in Congress. Many of those in Congress are so busy trying to keep the job, they are forgetting to DO the job – and that is to work toward a common defense and the welfare of our citizens. However, Term limits cuts both ways, you hurt the good ones with the bad.


I’ll be the first to admit that Founding Fathers (FF) of our great nation could not envision the leaps in weapon technology or in our communications technology– but they DID foresee the Govt. could abuse their power.


I have gotten into some very heated arguments with some associates (stick any title you need to in there) that feel that the time has come to limit the access to personal firearms, they base their argument on the above that the Founding Fathers could not foresee machine guns or other weapons of multiple cartridge capacity and because of such the Second Amendment should not apply! My counter to that line of reasoning is that the Founding Fathers could not have possible foreseen the changes in technology in dealing with a ‘Free Press’, which as you know is the First Amendment. Remember we’ve moved from scrolls and clay tablets to printing presses and now electronic media. Should we abandon these new methods as well? – Of course not, we wish to be an educated populace.


The FF, knew based on their past collective histories, that a Government without checks and balances, is a government that is dangerous. That’s WHY they structured the Constitution and Bill of Rights the way they did.


The problem as ‘I’ see it, is that we’ve become so nervous of offending someone, that we’ve don’t do anything at all in most cases (we’re forced to be Reactionary vs. being Proactive). What many in Congress have seemly forgotten is that ANYONE who devises/offers/attempts to act AGAINST our citizens or our country should be treated as an enemy combatant (whether it be a US Citizen or outsider). The slippery slope comes into play as to WHO are those persons to DECIDE what defines who an enemy combatant is? – Is it simply someone who speaks about govt. injustice? Or someone who speaks up in order to incite a plan and carry out an attack? I believe the latter. This question is much harder to answer than you can imagine.



So the question remains - How do we manage to screen those who wish to do harm vs. those who don’t? I don’t have any answer, but I can tell you this; limiting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms of a free society IS NOT THE ANSWER. Besides, no one has devised a fool proof plan to keep weapons out of the hands of Criminals - therein lies the rub.


The Right to Keep and Bear Arms has its roots as far back as 1689 under English law, The Bill of Rights Act, 1689 allowed for Protestant citizenry to "have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law," and restricted the right of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants' right to bear arms. It also established that regulating the right to bear arms was one of the powers of Parliament and NOT of the Monarch. Sound familiar?


IF Congress changes our right to bear arms, we might as well surrender.
I'll go back in the Garage now so the grenades can be tossed at me.

Jake