Template:Defense of defense

In defense of defense

If the pen is mightier than the sword its use should be more guarded.

Elvia Díaz, the author of the opinion piece for the Arizona Republic, thinks the fact that "we know nothing about at least six other parishioners who also appeared to draw their handguns at West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas... is terrifying."

What I think is terrifying, since the pen is mightier than the sword, is that Elvia Díaz and the media publish this kind of hit piece on the inalienable right to self and community defense with impunity.

Texas did not make the law that allows "armed security at houses of worship and allowing parishioners to bring their weapons to church" Jesus did.

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36

Texas only reaffirmed this inalienable right in their statutes. That does not make Texas the source of the preexisting right.

And it is also not true that "The Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms." God did. The second amendment restricts the government from infringing on the right of the people to obtain and bear arms.

Elvia Díaz seems wholly ignorant of where the rights of the people come from and what the original purpose of the constitution was intended to be. Judging by other articles she has published, ignorance may be her most prominent trait. Unfortunately, she is not alone in her ignorance.

Yes "that constitutional amendment doesn’t spell out the types of firearms Americans should bear, nor does it give Americans the right to sell them to anyone to carry anywhere" as Elvia Díaz writes.

But again, that amendment is not the source of the people's rights. The Constitution was written to establish limitations and restrictions upon the government and this columnist for the Arizona Republic does not seem to understand that. And, evidently, the editors there and at USA Today are suffering from the same delusion—or ignorance or bias—as Elvia Díaz.

But they are still allowed to write and publish this nonsense. I suppose they think they have that right because the government granted them that right with the first amendment.

Yes, "We know firearms are readily available to anyone who wants one" but that is not "the problem." Firearms were more available when I was a boy in Texas in the 1950s and we did not have these mass shootings and stabbings. "Sunday’s shooting" isn’t just "about how Kinnunen got a hold of a weapon" illegally, but what brought him to this point of lawless behavior.

If you want to solve a problem, you have to seek the truth—the whole truth—and provide for it, even if you are a part of that problem.

Suggesting that the government should have the right to infringe upon people's right to keep and bear arms because some people are bad and might get a gun if the government is not granted the power to infringe upon the people's rights is like restricting the right of a free press because someone might write nonsense and make some of the same ignorant comments we see coming from Elvia Díaz and the media editors. Clearly, they are either ignorant or biased about where the rights of the people come from and the purpose of the Constitution.

---

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed — " Declaration of Independence

---