A Doomsday Provision

The following is by a Truth is Reason reader from Connecticut

Guns are not the problem.

Is everyone up in arms to take cars away from law abiding citizens because some choose — yes choose — to drink and drive?!?

We already have strict laws against drunk driving, so why are there still drunk driving fatalities? Maybe we need to make the laws even more strict? That should do it!!!

Banning guns from law abiding citizens will not prevent criminals and the criminally insane from obtaining guns or other means to carry out their crimes.

In Connecticut many people have been emboldened to think they are justified in taking guns away from everyone because of the actions of one insane young man. The Governor of Connecticut put together a commission to find ways to prevent another tragedy (read: ban all guns). This commission held hearings to ostensibly “listen” to what citizens have to say on the topic.

One citizen who they allowed to speak was Henson Ong, a legal immigrant from the Philippines.

Mr. Ong’s testimony is worth hearing. Not because I agree with what he had to say, but because he has not been lulled into the false sense of security that “everything will be all right” once guns are banned. He was a victim of violent crime in the Philippines, which was the driving force for him to immigrate to the U.S. with this family [ref].

Mr. Ong concluded his testimony with this quote by U.S. Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski:

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime usually do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed only for those exceptionally rare circumstances when all other rights have failed. A free people can only afford to make this mistake once.

I encourage you to take 5 minutes to watch what Mr. Ong had to say. It is a very articulate, well-reasoned testimony that was unfortunately cut way too short by the committee chair ringing a bell demanding that he wrap up his testimony. Others noted that the committee didn’t ring the bell or interrupt other speakers who spoke for much longer on the other side of the issue. Intentional? Absolutely. Living in Connecticut, land of the liberal agenda, has taught me that fairness and reason go out the window when there is a liberal agenda to further.

Leave a Reply