Overheard at Tajikistan Airport Security Checkpoint, Second Amendment

Opinion

Overheard at Tajikistan Airport Security Checkpoint, Second Amendment : Image from Google maps, altered by Dean Weingarten
Overheard at Tajikistan Airport Security Checkpoint, Second Amendment: Image from Google maps, altered by Dean Weingarten

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- In December of 2019, a long-time friend, missionary, and adventurer was standing in line to be checked for entry into Tajikistan, at the airport. Some of the adventures he has had over the years have been worthy of fictional men of action. In this case, he exercised discretion and did not become involved. The conversation he overheard is worth relating. Here is his account:

We had just landed and were herded into line for passport control in the country of Tajikistan. I heard an accented voice ask a lady in line next to her if she was American, she said no, and replied that she was from the Republic of Georgia.

This lady from the Republic of Georgia had exceptional English, so the other asked if she had been to America. It turns out she had been in Arizona for a three month stint working for project Arizona. The woman who initiated the conversation then said:

You would do well to stay away from America due to an epidemic of “gun violence”. 

The younger gal quickly answered, quite matter of fact: “Oh, you're a victim.” 

To which the older woman replied, “Yes, we are all victims.” 

The younger woman said:

“No, actually, I meant you are a victim of leftist propaganda. 

“America has a Constitution that guarantees certain liberties, and per the second amendment of the American constitution people can exercise the right to bear arms at any time and any place, to protect themselves, but even more importantly, to insure their government does not become tyrannical.”

“The right to keep and bear arms is one of the unique things about America that makes her a great nation.” 

At this point I am dying to jump into the conversation.  However, talking about overthrowing tyrannical governments is not an activity I participate in while standing in a line surrounded by border guards at an entry point in the ‘Stans.

I continued to eavesdrop.

The initiator retorted:

“Well, the Constitution is an old document and the guns they were talking about were nothing like what's available today”. 

The liberty-loving Georgian lady did not let that comment go unanswered. She proceeded to school the older woman on the fact that they were talking arms to bring a tyrannical government down, so if the other lady wanted to talk intent of the founding fathers then today American citizens would be free have all the armaments that they could afford to have.

Arms that are equal to what America's soldiers have access to.

She continued by stating that “gun violence” is a myth. If politicians wanted to truly take on the problem of murder they would have to find a way to deal with the corrupt hearts of mankind.

Since they do not do this, the best answer is for good guys to have guns and be ready and efficient with them to kill the bad guys.

With these comments the initiator must have felt annihilated. She wished the other lady a good trip and went silent.

It was beautiful listening to this random lady from the Republic of Georgia defend America and the Constitution. America needs more patriots to stand up and set the record straight. We need to keep ourselves informed and not shy away from confronting leftist propaganda.

In my travels and correspondence with people in other countries around the world, I have found many who envy the freedoms Americans have, who respect the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, who wish their country had similar protection.

A recent correspondent in New Zealand mentioned how much he wished his country had a Bill of Rights such as the United States has.

What we have in the United States is unique and valuable. Our limitations on governmental power have resulted in a nation which is the wealthiest, most powerful, and in aggregate, most free in the world and throughout history.

There are small, individual exceptions, of course. Singapore may have more economic freedom.  Other countries with vast oil wealth per person have created huge welfare systems, such as in Norway.

In the history of mankind, no other nation has come close to the wealth, power, and freedom of the United States.

It is a testament to the lack of historical awareness in the United States that we have a significant contingent of citizens who wish to destroy it, precisely because the United States is so wealthy, rich, powerful, and successful.

They do not have a plan to make it better; their plan consists of feeding off the dying carcass while overseeing a long decline.

Long live the United States and the Constitution! I took an oath to defend them from all enemies, foreign and domestic. There has been no equal in all the history of the world. They are worth defending.



About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

48
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
5 Comment threads
43 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
21 Comment authors
WillPatriot-556StagLaddyboyWild Bill Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Stag
Member
Stag

Awesome. I wish every gun owner was as educated as this woman. We have the right to own any type of arms we can buy or build. Every arms law is an infringement.

Marlboro
Member
Marlboro

To go back to the article, I have long thought about retiring to some inexpensive tropical paradise, but more recently the realization of being denied any firearms is a deal breaker. Very few countries allow Americans to possess any firearms for even basic self defense.

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

Yet, a FOREIGN NATIONAL Saudi legally bought a Glock and shot Americans.
The ATF has exceptions for foreign nationals to buy American guns, but not actual AMERICANS!
So, what BATF ‘decision’ made THAT insanity possible?

John
Member
John

True, the shooter had a hunting permit, which is an exemption for non immigrants to legally purchase a firearm. The FBI warned months before this terrorist act that the hunting permit loophole could be used to purchase a firearm legally for illegal intent. Uber’s Lock & Gun, who sold the weapon, claimed to have never received the alert. Even if they did receive such an alert, denying a sale with no legal basis, (NICS provided a “proceed”), imagine the dems yelling foul and calling them every name in the book, racist, anti Muslim, anti immigrant, bigot, etc etc? In closing,… Read more »

jack mac
Member
jack mac

Where in the US can a hunting license be used to bypass form 4473 and background check?

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@JM – Doesn’t bypass 4473 – without a hunting license, not being either a citizen or resident is an automatic denial. with hunting license, they proceed with background check – not automatically a pass though it is hard to imagine FBI having instant access to Saudi criminal records.

Heed the Call-up
Member
Heed the Call-up

One only needs to be a resident alien, not a citizen.

UncleT
Member
UncleT

While Inget what you guys are saying, but you will have to fight the Constitution to fix this so called ‘loophole’? The Constitution refers to ‘people’ in the Constitution, not ‘Citizens’. This protects their right to life and liberty just like ours.

You are doing what the Anti-2A zealots are doing, convicting a whole class of people and trying take their rights away fir the bad actions of a few or one.

That’s not how we should be doing this.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Uncle, True the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment says “… persons…”. That word was intended to insure the inclusion of former slaves and the sons and daughters of slaves. As there are none of those left, it is long past time to change the word to “citizens”.

Vanns40
Member
Vanns40

Respectfully, I disagree. Following that logic we would deny any non-citizens the ability to purchase ANY potential weapons. We should NEVER legislate against inanimate objects, only the use of any object in the commission of a crime. We should repeal all arms laws and stringently enforce laws against murder, rape, assault & robbery, with or without any weapon by anyone.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Vann, I think that treating citizens with more Rights than aliens would be a good thing and long overdue. Treating aliens the same as citizens was not the intent of the 14th Amendment, but rather a liberal twist being used against us.
But I agree with everything else that you wrote. Repeal of all arms laws and stringently enforce laws against murder, rape, assault & robbery, with or without any weapon by anyone would be getting back to the Constitution and restoring the Republic!

Whatzit
Member
Whatzit

There has long been a push to change our thinking by changing our words and their definitions regarding “immigrants”. This word is supposed to mean people who come to our country legally, apply for citizenship legally and work to assimilate into our American culture. Now, the word immigrant has been twisted to mean any alien, from any place, coming in by any means (usually illegally) and so forth. Gun laws are mostly illegal and should be scrapped. Constitutional rights are reserved for legal citizens of this country, no just any “persons”. Aliens are NOT citizens, and need not be afforded… Read more »

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

Be it UNDERSTOOD! NO ONE has CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! PERIOD! Think of it like this…say we humans had NO government. We find that we have a problem protecting ourselves from certain psychopaths in our midst. So we get together as a group and agree that we have rights. Those rights are based on natural law. They are the rights to life, liberty and property. So we form a government with rules written down on paper and use those rules as the guide as to how we officiate to protect our lives, liberty and property from aggression. The rules on the paper… Read more »

Heed the Call-up
Member
Heed the Call-up

I believe what he meant by Constitutional rights are those rights protected by the Constitution, what, as you stated, is called Natural Law.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@CL, Those Rights are variously known as God given, natural and Constitutional. Those Rights are known as constitutional, only as a kind of shorthand, because those Rights are enumerated and enshrined in the Bill of Rights. I think that you are putting too fine a point on it.

Quatermain
Member
Quatermain

The 14th is an abomination, literally passed at bayonet point. It needs to go. It has given us such wonders as anchor babies and homosexual “marriage”.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Q, The 14th amendment is, also, the constitutional device by which Rights recognized in the Bill of Rights are incorporated against the individual states. Prior to the 14th Amendment the Rights recognized by the federal government could be denied by the states pursuant to the concept of dual sovereignty. However, what you say is mostly correct. If we would change one word (person to citizen), then we could preclude some of the uses that were not intended, and still force the States and its subparts to recognize our natural, BOR enumerated, civil Rights. That homosexual relationship thing comes out of… Read more »

Quatermain
Member
Quatermain

Sorry but you are wrong. The 14th was cited in Obergefell vs Hodges by SCOTUS as the reason to strike down the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Certainly that act should never have been passed in the first place as it was the stalking horse to bring down the institution of marriage. In truth marriage should not even be licensed by the state. It wasn’t until the 19th century. While I do take your point I find it intellectually dishonest to have an amendment passed extra constitutionally by the criminal federal government. Scrap it and come up with something constitutional.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Q, “You are wrong” is so broad. Wrong about what, specifically? Do you mean the Obergefell v. Hodges that used the 14th Amendment to incorporate that unenumerated and newly found, Ninth Amendment Right against the States? : “Obergefell v. Hodges was a landmark decision United States Supreme Court case. The Court held that the recognition and provision of same-sex marriage is a fundamental right. They ruled it is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Thus striking down the Defense of Marriage Act as repugnant to the Constitution. To be clear, I’m not saying that the liberal… Read more »

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@Q – Have long said something similar about marriage. To quote G. Bush – “Marriage is between a man, a woman and their god.” Nowhere in that statement do I see any reference to the government. Government (state, fed or local) should not recognize or manage marriage at all, should just grandfather everyone married into a civil union. Marriage should be managed by churches – recognized churches then licensed to officiate civil unions. A nonbeliever or other objectionable to a church could simply get a civil union and government would get out of any decisions regarding same sex marriages. Funny… Read more »

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Finnky, People will be forming their own “religions”and “churches” for the purposes “marrying” everything from goats to grapefruits.
People are, even now, giving meanings to words that were never intended, (e.g. gun violence, homosexual marriage, man boy love association) for the purpose of legitimating their pervasions, that have been recognized as harmful to society, for thousands of year.

jack mac
Member
jack mac

UncleT: My upvote for your comment is being removed. I thank some readers are confusing illegal aligns with others legally in our country. Only the right to vote should require citizenship. All other rights for all legally in our country should be honored and protected. We as free citizens have already allowed an ever increasing number of free citizens to be degraded into a legal designated sub-citizen class as prohibited persons. Too many of our public servants are doing this; too many citizens desire this; too many citizens allow and accept this. If this is allowed to remain and continue… Read more »

Bill
Member
Bill

Agreed. Non-citizens legally in America should not be treated as a separate class, with abbreviated rights. The Second was intended to allow good people to defend against bad people, and gun control has merely taken away that possibility for most people, as this very act in a gun free zone illustrates. If others in the area were not forbidden to responsibly carry arms, the design of the Second Amendment might have been demonstrated, instead of the innocent having no choice but to be passive victims.

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@JM – Sounds as though you might be down voting someone other than @UncleT. His comment sounds to me as though it agrees with yours. For those proposing denying rights to noncitizens – how would you square that with rights and responsibilities of legal residents? Way back when my ancestors immigrated – rule was any male immigrant of age was put on the top of draft list and sent to war. Would you really deny gun rights to those being asked to wage war on our behalf? Even if you would deny rights to non-residents, seems to me that getting… Read more »

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

Sorry Uncle T, you’re actually supporting RIGHTS where these other commentators are supporting PRIVILEGES that they see as being granted by a piece of paper called the Constitution. And because you have the AUDACITY to suggest that we actually have RIGHTS that are precedent to any piece of paper, one of the brain dead lemmings on here voted you down to which I had no choice but bring you back to the zero count. Face it…MOST Americans are nothing but armed slaves. A LOT of them comment on here.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@CL Privilege is another word for Right. Immunities is also another word for Rights. Armed slaves? Whoever allowed slaves to be armed?

Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

One only has to look at the HISTORY of a group of “people / persons” to have PROOF that the group in question cannot handle FREEDOMS. When One looks at the koran, sira, suhih and the hadith, One can see they teach TREACHERY, death, slavery and DECEIT to anyone not of their group.

Patriot-556
Member
Patriot-556

Bullsh1t. If you are not a citizen of this country, you SHOULD NOT be able to buy a firearm. Period, end of story.

Will
Member
Will

@Patriot,I agree 100%! What really pisses me off is that law-abiding citizens,firearms owners like us will still get blamed for selling firearms to Muslim terrorists who should not even be anywhere near US military bases.

mgkdrgn
Member

You talk about “exception” like once they have a hunting license they can just walk out with a gun, no questions asked. That is simply NOT the case. They must pass the NICS criminal background check just like anybody else. In my experience (I am an FFL) most of the time they are a “Delay” to allow for a deeper check.

jack mac
Member
jack mac

tetejuan: Employees of the BATF are a servants of our public servants. Public servants who we have allowed the power to suppress free citizens by the acts of oppression that established the requirement for background checks.

Yes, foreigners legally in our country do have more rights than our prohibited person sub-citizen underclass of free citizens. Public servants do not have to serve sub-citizens that is why more of us are being so classified.

Bill
Member
Bill

We really shouldn’t overlook that this act of violence took place in a gun free zone, where the aggressor knew that no one would be able to stop him…. Time to stop decreeing such “fish in a barrel” areas, and allow people to have a means handy to defend against criminal violence.

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

And even if that wasn’t a way to get a firearm, there are how many ways? After all, if there are 600 million of them here, chances are that ANYONE that wants one will figure out a way to get one if they have any brains at all.

Darkman
Member
Darkman

If you want understand how important the Freedoms We have in the United States are. Look no further than the people of Hong Kong. When have you seen so many U.S. flags. On display by the people of a foreign country that weren’t being burned. The people of Hong Kong have a greater understanding of those Freedoms. Than most of the people living in this nation. Keep Your Powder Dry.

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

The Hong Kong protesters were singing our National Anthem. I blame the cowardly Brits for shamelessly handing Hong Kong to the communist Chinese.

Dubi
Member
Dubi

That is an unfair comment. The UK leased Hong Kong for 99 years and tried to renew the agreement but the Chinese refused. In the good old days we would have sent a couple of Gun Boats to shake then Chinese but today that does not work.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Dubi, Interesting how the Brits thought that the communists could be trusted, very interesting. The Brits are not usually that stupid.

Finnky
Member
Finnky

@WB – Are you suggesting that the Brits should have reneged on a binding contract? They had a lease, and like any law abiding tenant they surrendered the property when the lease ran out. Would you have had us act as mercenaries stealing property properly belonging to China? In retrospect that might have been the better choice, but we are (or should attempt to be) an honorable people.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Finnky, Nope, I’m saying that the Brits should not made that treaty to return Hong Kong. Hong Kong became a colony of the British Empire after Qing China ceded Hong Kong Island 1842. The colony expanded to the Kowloon Peninsula in 1860 , and was further extended when Britain obtained a 99-year lease of the New Territories in 1898.
If Nixon would not have opened trade with China and made them wealthy and powerful, the Brits could have kept Hong Kong; Hong Kong would be happy; and the non-Communist world would be safer.

CourageousLion
Member
CourageousLion

The weren’t communist when the agreement took place.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@CL, The territory was returned to China in 1997. I believe that the government of China was Communist in 1997.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@ttj, We should be blaming that idiot Richard Shithouse Nixon, too. He decided to begin trade with China, thus making our enemy phenomenally wealthy, and too powerful for us to contest the issue of Hong Kong.

Whatzit
Member
Whatzit

It’s what happens when we trust labels such as “Republican” and go on to elect progressives wearing conservative disguises. Unfortunately, many people in this country are ignorant.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@What, Yep, Nixon is a prime example.

Knute
Member
Knute

“We need to keep ourselves informed and not shy away from confronting leftist propaganda.” Tell that to Harold Hutchison, whose never ending refrain is “be nice to those attempting to destroy you, otherwise they might get upset”. He leaves out (OFC), the just lie down and let them win part… But I’m guessing that Harold will be uncommunicative towards Mr. Weingarten, just as he shuns all the rest of us. If he looks down upon us as deplorables, which is what he always writes, why would he engage with us? From that cloud nine powered by unicorn farts that Hutchison… Read more »

Knute
Member
Knute

I was attempting to be at least somewhat less offensive, but yeah. That’s accurate also. 🙂

jack mac
Member
jack mac

USA: I recommend that we change your description of Harold to that of wimp, instead of presented term.

Heed the Call-up
Member
Heed the Call-up

Agreed, I like pussy, not so much Harold’s words.