- Published on Wednesday, 06 February 2013 00:35
- Written by Super User
By CHARLIE ALLO
When one thinks about destroying a country it usually involves the use of the military and the wide range of armaments that are available to a well equipped army, but this is often costly and very destructive to many of the resources that an invader might consider invaluable.
There have been many nations around the world that have been taken over from within; the name and boundaries may be the same, but these nations have become a weak image of their former greatness.
Frequently these changes come about through the government of the country; one can only surmise why our Founders gave us a Constitution that would limit the power of the government, but given the past history of many nations it would seem that there were some real concerns over the acquisition of power by the government.
Some people have suggested that our Constitution is a negative document because it limits what the government can do, this may be true, but given the path that many nations have taken in the past it would appear that their intent was to limit the acquisition of power by any of the elements of our government.
It would appear there has been a gradual change in our concept of what government is supposed to do, it is now viewed as a distributor of benefits to the general public, which are now viewed as individual rights, but in order to supply these benefits revenue must be gotten from those that have accumulated some wealth.
The major problem with this concept is that the benefits continue to expand and the organization needed to administer these programs grows even faster, this creates a drain on the capital that is need to oil our capitalistic system.
The result of these actions has sent many countries around the world into turmoil, but most of these governments have disarmed their citizens, and they show their displeasure by destroying public and private property.
One wonders what the result would be if, the operative word should be when, the government is unable to continue supplying the benefits that many have come to view as a right.
Given the current trend of actions being taken by the government, one may begin to show some concern
over the government’s efforts to place greater control over the arms that are in the hands of citizens, for the most part the government’s concern is directed at the citizen that is behaving in a responsible manner.
It would seem more reasonable to place the emphasis on the persons that use weapons in the commission of a crime, but this is not the tactic that the administration is employing.
It would appear that those states that have the highest crime rate also have the strictest gun laws; is the government looking to seek an equalization of crime?
If this were the case the government would have even more justification to enlarge the law enforcement aspect of the government, and to put further restrictions on guns held by the individual.
Statistics are often given on the crimes committed with guns, but seldom is one told whether the weapon was legal obtained by the criminal. The government needs to be questioned when it presents information that is incomplete and presents an incorrect picture of the real facts.
The electorate needs to make themselves more knowledgeable about the Founders’ intention when they drafted the Constitution; the nation appears to be losing ground in preserving the protection that the Founders put in place.
Don’t listen to the rhetoric that the politicians put forth; it is more important to look at where their actions are going to take the country, this might require one to do a little independent thinking, but it can be very rewarding.