Carroll D. Childers P.E.
Major General ARNG (ret)
For all members of all three Branches of the U.S. Government, the Cabinet, and the heads of all Agencies and Departments who have taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Senator Feinstein has produced an impressive list of prohibited items which are largely now protected for American ownership by the Second Amendment. Yes, if one has the money to invest in proper licenses and procedures, they can now legally own anything on her list. She must be given credit for such a thorough job relative to firearms. Her claim is that the need for this, among other noble things, is to prevent such previous incidents as Ft hood, Columbine, San Antonio TX, and CT elementary school. This would indeed be a noble thing if it would actually eliminate the satanic appetite for gore and pain by evil people.
The lingering question is, given that she could actually pass the legislation she wants to pass and be successful in enforcing the rules, would she accomplish her stated goals of protecting innocent people from the insanity of our society? Let us discuss briefly other-than-gun options for insane people to employ. Only a few options presented.
Many individuals own or can fly airplanes of various sizes. Clearly these make excellent weapons of mass destruction. Is the next restriction on our freedom connected with aircraft?
Many individuals own and or operate tractor trailer rigs. Under the right circumstances, these can create a system of mass destruction. They can be driven through schools, shopping centers, crowds at various public events, and used to create massive, multi-vehicle accidents on busy highways. Is the next restriction on our freedom to be big rigs?
Timothy McVeigh created a massive bomb to attack the Murtha Building in Oklahoma City, destroying the building, killing 168 people, and injuring over 800. This bomb was created using commercially available materials which are still available today. Is the next restriction on our freedom to be fertilizer (and fuel)?
Molotov cocktails are a historical implement of war, quite easy to fashion, and as easy to employ as they are to create. What is a Molotov cocktail? It is a glass bottle filled with fuel with a cloth wick attached to it appropriately depending upon the bottle configuration. The cloth wick is ignited and the bottle thrown at a target. Upon hitting the target the glass bottle breaks, thus allowing the burning cloth wick to ignite the fuel which at this point is part fluid and part aerosolized droplets. Employed in some crowed environment like theaters, schools, sports arenas, parades, and other public gatherings, these would amount to a weapon of limited mass destruction by the direct effects on humans and if secondary effects (structure destruction, toxic inhalation) are added, more than limited mass destruction. Is the next restriction on our freedom to be no glass containers and no gasoline? Or no matches or cigarette lighters to ignite the wick?
A flame thrower is one of the more ghastly devices which the military has ever employed. A flame thrower would be straight forward to build if one were crazy enough to do so and to employ it on an innocent body of people and I leave it to the reader to identify that body. What are needed are a compressed air tank and a tank to contain the fuel, plus some plumbing and other minor hardware. The details of this are available in the Internet. I am not going to say how jellied fuel can be made but it takes two readily available components to create an emulsified or jellied, semi-viscous material which the compressed air tank would cause to be expelled in a stream across a space. By igniting this stream of viscous material, a flame thrower is replicated. As the burning viscous material impacts a human, or anything, it tends to adhere to the surface and burn in place, thus creating horrendous wounds and structural damage. Is the next restriction on our freedom to be no gasoline (again)? The other component is frighteningly simple.
Another approach, though not readily available but under certain conditions can be acquired, is the use of military high explosives. Well, where does one acquire such material? I will not make this public information but I will estimate that anyone who has served in the military, and particularly those who were in armored, artillery, or engineer units will know my answer. It won’t be a cake walk and the military might just tighten up their security right now as a result of this hint (I hope they do) but given the desire, I could acquire illicit explosive components within 2 weeks.
Evil people, largely men, have and will always stalk the planet to visit pain, fear, suffering, and death on those who never anticipate encountering such people. The more of these evil people who can be killed the safer our innocents will be. My view is that every sane and capable person should be armed, trained, and capable of defending themselves, their loved ones, and those innocents who are incapable of self defense. My logic says that if this rule were broadly practiced that evil people would largely be eliminated from the face of the earth or at least would be extremely cautious in practicing their evil inclinations. Certainly they would be eliminated from the United States of America.
There is no doubt in my mind that if the citizen is disarmed by law (or by unlawful E.O. or UN Treaty) that only the lawless will have weapons and that is an in balance that cannot be justified. Nor should it be justified. What is the point of justifying this illicit argument? Is it to personify the political goals of some low-life political hack who does not have the interests of “we the people” in mind? If it only takes the lawless seconds to execute his plan of pain, fear, suffering, and death and it takes the law enforcement only minutes to arrive to my aid, it is too late. I am the victim and the perpetrator of evil has escaped to strike again.
Therefore forgive my simplistic attitude about meddling with my rights under the Second Amendment as originally authored by our founding fathers. NO! Leave my Bill Of Rights ALONE. Do not ire me on this matter for anyone who does is robbing me of my God Given Rights and I will not tolerate it. God will cause those who rob me great pain.
Now I realize that the second Amendment appears to focus on my rights to own a weapon, or “arms” to be specific. Further, some pundits attempt to associate my rights with somehow being a member of “A well regulated Militia”. But I think this needs further examination as follows, beyond the restrictive bounds of the militia clause.
The Constitution is all about that underlying logic found in the Declaration Of Independence: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. The entire Constitution was created and ratified to attempt to capture and express this underlying logic in some detail. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the basic Constitution, was seen fitting by the framers to add some detail to those broadly expressed unalienable rights so that misinterpretation would be less likely. Now we have a horrendous event in Newtown CT where 20 innocent Elementary Children and their teachers were slaughtered by a mad man on drugs and armed with weapons which his mother should have kept secured from him and the call to change our rights is called for by the communists in Congress. I feel deeply for the loss of those innocents in CT as well as those in OK, and TX; and for those military members around the world over the ages who perish or are severely injured that we might live under our Constitution and enjoy the freedoms it guarantees. So now as the communists attempt to take advantage of a crisis (never let a good crisis go to waste as they say) and make a change to our rights under the Constitution, all good Americans should resist this process. Isn’t it strange that on the one hand we have ample evidence that the arrogant, narcissistic, destructive, communist occupying our white house is ineligible (by virtue of having only one parent who was a citizen of the US as starters) and NOBODY, either party, has the courage to challenge his occupation of the White House. Scores of suits to open Obama’s sealed past have been rejected by Judges based on, typically, lack of standing. What a scandalous lie. These judges are also treasonous. On the other hand, these communists, opposed by NOBODY, other than constitutionalists and organizations who defend the Second Amendment, seek to amend our Constitution to remove or amend the second Amendment? Frankly, I believe it is more important to our way of life to find Obama guilty of Treason, for one of many violations, and rid our government of him than it is to fight over an amendment which is being undermined with lies and deceit at every turn. But then, lies and deceit are the currency of communists. Finally on this tact I should state my strong belief that so long as my executing my unalienable Rights ( life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) imposes no harm on any other citizen, I should be able to do that. If owning a gun or bow and arrow or knife or axe or tractor trailer does not infringe upon those same rights of another there should be no issue. Of course when some insane or evil person uses their “Rights” (suppose killing makes him happy) in an unlawful way (murder, which is already against the law), then they have surrendered some of their rights under the Constitution.
It is clear to me that the Constitution is a composite document intended to ensure balance among those powers allocated to the three branches: justice, legislation, and executive. This balance seemed to work well for about 137 or so years until the money lenders once again gained a foothold on the American political landscape. Since then, and particularly over the last two decades, attacks increase on our constitutional rights and despots encroach into our key government positions. At this point, there are 70-80 members of our Congress who are admitted communists, Marxists, socialists, or progressives and who are openly intent on the destruction of our form of government. In lock step with this change is the encroachment of opposing and destructive ideologies like Islam. Members of this political system, under the guise of a religion, are being imported by our own government at an alarming rate.
One cannot begin to rationally consider any act to restrict rights under the current Constitution unless a formal Amendment is ratified in accordance with Article V. This includes the Unconstitutional NDAA 2012 wherein the Writ of Habeas Corpus (see Article 1 section 9.2) is suspended. However, this Act is a good example of how our Constitution can be subverted by evil people for undisclosed purposes. Mr. Obama has issued approximately 153 Executive Orders (E.O.) in his first illicit term, including modifications, extensions, and cancellations of previous E.O.s. Some of these reinforced previous E.O.s may be convenient and even appear to be useful from a National Security standpoint but others not only attract great criticism by the general public but appear to the normal lay person to be un-constitutional. Yet, Congress does not raise objection and force withdrawal. The E.O., no matter who issues it, does not have a basis in the Constitution. If Congress was doing its constitutional job every day instead of spending most of its time lobbying for re-election or for some illicit benefit for their electorial area, there would be no challenge to convene on-call to consider any issue which the E.O. supposedly provides a predetermined permission-to-execute condition for expediency sake.
The first Presidential Executive Order was issued by George Washington in 1789, but no numbering system or uniformity was applied until 1907 when the Department of State retroactively designated an EO issued by Abraham Lincoln in 1862 as Executive Order 1. Certainly Lincoln used the Executive Order in some unique ways due to the Civil War and history has not judged him harshly for that discretion. By 1873, President U.S. Grant had established the form of the Executive Order which is similar to the one used today. Obama is not the most prolific creator of E.O.s but it does seem that he issues ones with a certain level of arrogance that flies in the face of reason.
Carroll D. Childers P.E.
Major General ARNG (ret)