A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 |
| Charlton Heston 20 MAY 2000 NRA convention |
and the expected almost obligatory call from the Left for more gun control, I have decided to share my views, comments, history, and facts concerning the Second Amendment and “guns”. I apologize for the length, but if you are interested in current events, and history, or have strong views either supporting or opposing more gun laws, I think it will be worth your while.
History
To the Pilgrims, this country represented a place where a few people sought refuge from a tyrannical and oppressive government—one that refused to allow them religious freedom. They wanted a place where they could gather without fear of punishment. This new country provided exactly what they wanted and needed. They first made friends with locals and when necessary, defended themselves with weapons, including firearms.
Years later, their descendants wrote a Declaration of Independence stating “...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.” This served as the foundation for the Constitution. Please note that the Government did not give any rights to the people. The people were born with these rights. The people granted certain powers to the government. The Second Amendment ensures the people have the right to keep and bear Arms. This was for security, providing meals, and recreational shooting. Most importantly, the Second Amendment allows the people to secure and protect their other rights. Again it is important to note that the Second Amendment is not a right given to the people by the Government. No, the Government cannot give the people rights—they receive them from their Creator. If the state (government) did not give them, they cannot take them.
Why do we have a Second Amendment? Well in part it was because of what was happening in Great Britain. The Government was limiting the purchase of gun ownership to individuals who made a certain amount of money and would not use it but to hunt for game. The other part was for protection. Along the way, firearms became a source of recreation. Not only does the Second Amendment play a role in recreational activities, but it also deals with key historical events. The United States was founded in order to escape from government tyranny. In this, the founding fathers realized that we needed some method to protect ourselves from this type of oppressive government. The US government was designed to have limited powers. Allowing the citizens to arm themselves, ensures that the people would be able to intervene if the balance was altered, such as a dictator taking control. This has been the case in several countries throughout history. Ever heard of men named Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung? This destructive nature occurs when the wrong people become powerful, and lawful citizens are unable to intervene.
Tyrannical leaders, all follow the same process for government takeover. They start by controlling the media while restricting/removing firearms from the people. They then begin to indoctrinate the children in schools. Discredit and malign any and all that oppose them, while blaming others for the problems the Nation suffers. They also promise them wealth from the “rich”, all the while promising hope of a better future. Does this sound familiar? The Second Amendment will help ensure that this does not happen in the US, however, we must all fight to keep our rights described in the Second Amendment.
German firearm laws and hysteria created against Jewish firearm owners played a major role in laying the groundwork for the eradication of German Jewry in the Holocaust. Disarming political opponents was a categorical imperative of the Nazi regime. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This right, which reflects a universal and historical power of the people in a republic to resist tyranny, was not recognized in the German Reich. In 1928, the liberal Weimar Republic enacted Germany’s first comprehensive gun control law. Next in 1933, the Nazis seized more power and began massive searches and seizures of firearms from political opponents. In 1938, Hitler signed a new gun control law, which benefitted Nazi party members and entities, but denied firearm ownership to enemies of the state. It was later that year, during Kristallnacht (the Night of the Broken Glass), the Nazi regime disarmed German Jews. With no means to defend themselves, the Jewish population was soon arrested, and put on trains headed to the death camps of Sobibor, Aushweitz-Birkenau, Dachau, and Treblinka. In addition to the Jews were political prisoners, Social Democrats, Communists, unionists, habitual criminals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, vagrants, and beggars to disarm German citizens, particularly political opponents, and Jews. All in the name of the Final Solution the arguments used in print and radio defending its actions to make a pure race and rid Germany of those that would destroy the country. I suggest you read about the Red Brigade in Russia and how Stalin’s domestic disarmament led the way to genocide. Read also about Mao’s ruthless genocide to create the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Look at what steps they used and the resulting outcome. Compare their tactics to what you see happening here in the US.
Okay, enough World History, back to the Second Amendment. Most importantly, the Second Amendment guarantees that citizens can protect themselves. While we like to think we can rely on the police to protect us, police are rarely present at the time we need them. By possessing and carrying one’s own weapon, police protection is not necessary. One can defend his or her family and ensure their safety.
In a similar manner, the Second Amendment ensures the safety and execution of all of the other amendments. We all know that the first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights. Rights are given to us by our Creator, not privileges designated by a government. With the Second Amendment, we are able to use force in order to protect our other rights. If the right to own a firearm was eliminated, what voice would one have in the government? If one did not believe in the way matters were handled, what would they do? Write a strongly worded letter? Protesting would not be an option, and the government would be able to do whatever it pleased with a society with no means of resistance. In a way, the Second Amendment is similar to an insurance policy.
Many on the Left claim we need more Gun Control—the need to limit access to firearms, greater background checks, limitation on ammunition, or a huge tax on ammunition. They want us to believe that limiting or restricting guns will decrease homicides. However, where are the studies supporting this allegation? There are none. However, there are studies that demonstrate restricted or banned laws do not prevent any crimes, in fact, in most instances, all crimes with firearms increase. Thus the adage “If guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns”. Let’s look at a couple US cities that banned firearms, a couple States that loosened firearm restrictions, and a country that banned firearms.
Washington DC
On 24 SEP 1976, the Washington, DC City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be (1) kept unloaded and (2) rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or by installing a trigger lock. On 26 JUN 2008, the US Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling struck down the law as unconstitutional. What effect did this have on crime? During this time the Mayor and many on the Left said the DC gun law was working, yet when challenged did not have one study, credible or otherwise to support this. These were the facts released by the police themselves.
During the years the handgun ban and trigger lock law were in effect, the murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was before the law was enacted. The US murder rate averaged 11% lower during the same time period. Did the ban work? No.
Chicago, IL
The city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns in 1982. The particular ban barred law-abiding civilians from owning or possessing handguns except for those registered with local officials prior to the enactment of the law. The law also required the owner to re-register every two years or the owners would forfeit their right to possess them. This was changed in 1994, to every year. Once Chicago banned handguns, at least five surrounding suburbs instituted similar bans. In JUN 2008, when the Supreme Court overturned the DC handgun ban, at least four of the suburbs repealed their bans. The remaining suburbs and Chicago received news in JUN 2010 that the Supreme Court ruled 5-4, the ban was unconstitutional.
What effect did the Chicago handgun ban have on murder rates committed with handguns? They averaged 40% higher during the ban. Did the ban work? No.
Florida
On 01 OCT 1987, Florida’s right-to-carry law became effective. Right-to-carry means an individual has met certain “minimally restrictive” criteria—background check and completion of a gun safety course—to carry concealed firearms in most public places. As of 31 JUL 2010, Florida had issued 1,825,143 permits. Currently, Florida has 746,430 active licensees which is roughly 5.4% of the population that is 21 years of age or older (the minimum age to get a license).
What effect did the Florida right-to-carry law have on the murder rate? It has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the US murder rate has averaged 15% lower. Did right-to-carry have a positive impact on murder rates? Yes.
Texas
In JAN 1996, Texas’ right-to-carry law became effective. This law requires licensees to be a minimum of 21 years of age (18 if a member or veteran of the US armed forces), have a clean criminal/mental health record, and complete a handgun proficiency course. In 2009, Texas had 402,914 active licensees, which is roughly 2.4% of the state’s 21 and overpopulation.
What effect did the Texas right-to-carry law have on the murder rate? It has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the US murder rate has averaged 28% lower. Did the right-to-carry have a positive impact on murder rates? Yes.
Britain
In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring all civilians to surrender nearly all privately owned handguns to the police. This was just another in a string of laws going back hundreds of years. The police received over 163,000 handguns and nearly 1.5 million pounds of ammunition. The law is so strict that even shooters training for the Olympics were forced to travel to other countries to practice.
What effect did the Britain handgun have on crime? In the first six years of the ban, all gun crimes had risen by 40%. To date, the murder rate has averaged 15% higher during the ban. Did the ban work? No.
Concluding Thoughts
Well, after actually doing a lot of editing and deleting several topics I hope I have presented my arguments in a manner that is clear, concise, and somewhat succinct. There are many other topics I wanted to address, including more arguments specific to Second Amendment definitions, findings of fact from the Supreme Court, and other writings of James Madison— author of the Federalist Papers. Another topic that could be the source of another note pertains to Concealed Carry (CC) and Open Carry (OC) laws. The final topic deals specifically with registration and background checks. Of all the background checks performed, less than 1% of applicants are denied. Of that number 82% eventually receive a positive outcome. Most reasons for denial are due to wrong or inaccurate information. That means 18% of 1% are denied.
As you all know I swore an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and while my body may not allow me to “close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver or to repel his assault by fire and close combat”, my mind is still sharp and I will use it to defend my rights. Which means you can only take my firearms “from my cold, dead hands”.
No comments:
Post a Comment