Category Archives: Gun Control

The US Constitution Is As Plain As the Federalists (Who Wrote It)

THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES FOR the individual a right to keep and bear arms to preserve the security of a free state. A plain and solid reading of the language our forefathers fought and died many of them to leave us as our greatest American inheritance is not solely a restriction on the federal government. It is a restriction on ALL governing bodies. As one will note upon reading it, there are no local, state, federal or UN qualifiers. This amendment fears and contradicts ALL levels of government.

"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."

Arguments about the Second Amendment are always exercises in etymology, and turn on lynchpin definitions of a single word or another. We should point out that the Federalist concepts would only allow the phrase "well regulated" to mean, and thus it still means simply—prepared and quickly ready for action,—not to be confused with some knee jerk variation of half-blind power-seizing heavily controlled by a government deconstuctionist's impulsive reworking of the term. What would be the point in that?

A "free" state standing is the form of government established by the Constitution as it was originally written and intended. If not, pray tell, what on earth were they trying to establish? Many have noted that the Second Amendment makes itself plain as to where the right to keep and bear arms resides: It is a right of "the people."

We must agree. For we notice that the writers acknowledged three different entities when describing to each the powers that are called into existence with the ratification of the founding document of this nation.

The entity designated the states is not the primary issue in the Second Amendment. Enumerated elsewhere are the powers of the states. The same holds true for any specified powers the governing bodies of the United States of America are called to exercise. So let's be clear. This specific power of the right to bear arms is given specifically to The People all within the sensibilities informing the federalist republic the founders struggled to invent.

Man is bestowed by God the Creator of Natural Rights the primary right to defend himself, his family, and his community against aggression to the quiet enjoyment of these rights, even against an unjust government, foreign or domestic, as it infringes his own natural liberty. And when utilized as an effective tool in the sporting conservation of natural wildlife while providing food for the tables of tens of thousands of numbers of families, it defies common sense to consider abridging this very sacred right, a right when infringed is the very definition of social oppression.

The people of this country are guaranteed quiet enjoyment of their liberties with the responsibilities they command. We are taught, or at least, we once were taught never to sacrifice liberty for some temporary security, for he who does deserves neither liberty nor security.

The Second Amendment reinforces the principle the Declaration of Independence embraces wherein it was recognized that We the People have the God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the right to resist by a show of arms when specifically an oppressive government has breeched the peaceful call of liberty incumbent to a Free State.

All manners of public airing and effective redress of grievances become ineffective or unavailable in the case of an immediate threat against our life, liberty, and property, regardless of what Karl Marx or Mao Tze-Tong believed. This is the argument in a nutshell. One does not have a viable "right" unless he also has the ability to protect and defend it. We must agree, emphatically, as Americans, as rationalists, as seekers of liberty—the anti-constitutionists of whatever political persuasion have no standing until a greater power arrives.

Doesn't the recent Norwegian tragedy with all its ready-made hyperbole and suspicious evidence of the killer's ideological pedigree prove our point, all the more plainly, one more time. Norway's population has no access to guns, not even the police. And yet...

SAF Sues Eric Holder, FBI

ACTING ON BEHALF OF A GEORGIA resident and honorably discharged Vietnam War veteran, the Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation over enforcement of a federal statute that can deny gun rights to someone with a simple misdemeanor conviction on his record.

The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia. SAF and co-plaintiff Jefferson Wayne Schrader of Cleveland, GA are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued both the Heller and McDonald cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In July 1968, Schrader, then 21, was found guilty of misdemeanor assault and battery relating to a fight involving a man who had previously assaulted him in Annapolis, MD. The altercation was observed by a police officer, who arrested Schrader, then an enlisted man in the Navy, stationed in Annapolis. The man he fought with was in a street gang that had attacked him for entering their "territory," according to the complaint.

Schrader was ordered to pay a $100 fine and $9 court cost. He subsequently served a tour of duty in Vietnam and was eventually honorably discharged. However, in 2008 and again in 2009, Mr. Schrader was denied the opportunity to receive a shotgun as a gift, or to purchase a handgun for personal protection. He was advised by the FBI to dispose of or surrender any firearms he might have or face criminal prosecution.

"Schrader's dilemma," explained SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, "is that until recently, Maryland law did not set forth a maximum sentence for the crime of misdemeanor assault. Because of that, he is now being treated like a felon and his gun rights have been denied.

"No fair-minded person can tolerate gun control laws being applied this way," he added. "Mr. Schrader's case is a great example of why gun owners cannot trust governmentbureaucrats to enforce gun laws."

Now, more than ever, we need your commitment to fight the war against unlawful gun enforcement. The lawyer's bills are mounting. Fighting for freedom is not inexpensive. Help us raise the amount we need to stop the anti-gunners dead in their tracks.

Support from patriots like you will help us make sure what happened to Jefferson Wayne Schrader doesn't happen to you.

The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care. We need your financial support today to ensure we have the resources to beat back anti-gunners who will
stop at nothing to take away our right and ability to defend ourselves and our families.

Of Gun Laws And Purse Strings

ONCE AGAIN, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT has left the black community defenseless against armed gangs and thugs who terrorize and plunder law-abiding Americans.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban. Gun rights groups hailed the ruling as a seminal moment in their ongoing fight to roll back restrictive gun-control legislation. As far as the National Rifle Association (NRA) is concerned, McDonald settles the matter once and for all: "This decision makes absolutely clear that the Second Amendment protects the God-given right of self-defense for all law-abiding Americans, period." Be that as it may, the McDonald decision is really a victory for and about black Americans. At least it should be.

Read it all.

Considering The Second Amendment

Patriot
Second Amendment Crackpots, Cracked like the Liberty Bell
Second Amendment and the Liberty Bell[/caption]As breaking news that an illegal gun ring has been snared in a sting by the Feds hits the media wires as I write this with the knowledge that the Supreme Court will soon address the right to bear arms issue again in a case from Chicago, it is more important than ever to remember why the Second Amendment is important, even precious to Americans who understand the consequences of ignoring the much maligned US Constitution.

We who appreciate the wisdom of our learned and conceptual founders have no choice but to oppose those in favor of touchy feely gun eradication laws, which leaves us helpless to defend ourselves and our families from intruders of every stripe, and worse, creating an environment where the rise of an oppressive fascist government intent on enslaving or abandoning its citizenry is inevitable.

Mari Thompson of Second Amendment Sisters offers a sterling remembrance.

A COMMON ERROR in Constitutional interpretation is the failure to examine the document in the context of its original meaning. In fact, Thomas Jefferson once wrote to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, suggesting to him that when examining and interpreting the Constitution, he should study the time in which the document was written, and “carry himself back to that time.”

This would seem to be good advice for today. The recent Heller vs. DC case might have gotten more votes in favor of Heller had the Supreme Court of today done just that.

We certainly know that during the time of the writing of the Constitution, every male citizen above the age of 16 was counted as a member of the militia. All males were assumed to own weapons (which most of them paid for), and be ready to muster when the call came. Of course, the first call for the militia was to fight the British in what has become known as the American Revolution.

Today, as during the early days of this country, the people are still the militia, in the usage of the word at the time of our founding. The actual purpose of having armed citizens was to guard against an overbearing government. In the inimitable words of our National Spokesperson, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, when speaking to Senator Chuck Schumer and other members of a Senate committee: “The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect all of us (the people) from all of you (the politicians).”

We now live in a country that has been promised “Hope and Change” by our new president. Since we have no details of what “hope” and what “change” he was speaking about during the election, the Second Amendment is more important than ever. We must be ever more alert to signs of any government entity trying to erode the God-given and constitutionally enumerated right to keep and bear arms and all other constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Mari Thompson is President of SAS, and is also one of its founding members.

More Apples, More Oranges

Of course these nasty, rather inconvenient statistics would never happen here in America, right, because we have our precious US Constitution to protect us from evil bandits and foreign and internal freedom fighters, right? Oops, Madame Sotomayor just slipped us a silver mickey, but hey, I think in the long run our millions of gun-hating people-loving progressive permissive class clowns might appreciate this...

Woman-with-gun
Apples and Oranges

Nn 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. Priceless.

Bottom line: Americans must be crazy to cling to their guns and their religion and their matter of fact principles that fly in the face of all this BIG LOVE doled out by governmental gun control fanatics because every American know by now after all our progressive thought experiments that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with protecting oneself or one's family whether it be from a criminal enterprise or a criminal government.

Yes, that must be it. After all, they'll never come for me...

Legal Gun Ownership Saves Lives

Firearms
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
–Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE has shifted over the last 20 years. Activists pointed to Britain, Australia and Canada as models of gun control policy; however, the statistics tell a far different story, says John Barnes of the Washington Policy Center. Read on...

It’s an age-old story. A criminal shoots someone, and then politicians propose gun-control measures that would have done nothing to prevent the shooting. On March 26, Kyle Huff killed six people at a late-night party in Seattle. Seattle mayor Greg Nickels immediately called for more regulations on guns. None of his proposals would have prevented the tragedy.

There is another side to stories about guns. In 1990 a group of gang members pulled a Seattle man from his bicycle and beat him. He used his legally-registered handgun to shoot one of the assailants and stop the attack. In 2002 a West Seattle woman shot an intruder who had broken into her home and was beating her roommate. In 2003 an elderly Tacoma man confined to his bed shot an intruder who had kicked in his door and attacked him. In 2004 a Spokane woman awoke one morning to discover an intruder in her house, whom she held at gunpoint until the police arrived. In all of these cases, if it were not for the legal use of guns in self-defense, the victims would likely be dead.

The gun control debate has shifted over the last 20 years. Back then it was common to hear that it is in everyone’s best interests if the government made guns go away. The legislative agenda of anti-gun groups was much more radical and overt. Activists pointed to Britain, Australia, and Canada as models of gun control policy.

In 1997 Britain banned handguns, and between 1998 and 2003 gun crimes doubled. According the British Home Office, between 1997 and 2001 homicides increased by 19% and violent crime increased by 26%, while in the U.S. those same crimes fell by 12%. Between 2000 and 2001, robbery increased by 28% in Britain but only 4% in the U.S. Domestic burglary increased by 7% in Britain, but only 3% in the U.S.

In 1996 Australia enacted sweeping gun control laws. In the six years following, violent crime rates rose by 32%. Canada isn’t faring well under its stringent gun control laws. Today Canada’s violent crime rate is more than double that of the U.S.

The fact that during this time right-to-carry laws were expanding in the U.S. makes these statistics all the more telling. Now 40 states allow citizens to carry guns. Violent crime rates are steadily declining in the U.S. Research—and common sense—show the “right-to-carry” by honest citizens deters crimes against persons and property.

Now even the most vocal anti-gun groups in Washington admit there is an individual right to own guns. The debates rage not over the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns, but how to keep them away from criminals. But just because the debate has shifted doesn’t mean we are immune from bad ideas masquerading as sound public policy. Exhibit one is Mayor Greg Nickels’ knee-jerk call for more gun control.

Citing a rash of gun-related crimes in the past few months, the mayor wants the state to allow cities to tighten restrictions. He is going after the usual targets: “assault” weapons, the supposed “gun show loophole,” and requirements for trigger locks and “safe storage.” All of these are problematic.

There was a federal assault weapons ban in place from 1994 to 2004. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms says the ban did not reduce crime nationally. Criminals who wanted to obtain such weapons found easy ways to get them in spite of the ban. Moreover, law enforcement research shows these guns are used in only about 1% of violent crimes.

The National Institute of Justice found in the 1980s and again in 1997 that only 2% of criminal guns come from gun shows. A report by Handgun Control, Inc., (hardly a friend of gun rights) found only two of 48 big-city police chiefs said guns bought at shows were a major problem in their cities.

Research shows at least 2.5 million protective uses of guns each year in the U.S. Guns are used about three to five times as often for defensive purposes as for criminal purposes. Most often the mere sight of a gun prevents a crime from occurring or getting worse.

Reasonable gun restrictions are clearly necessary; obviously owning a machine gun shouldn’t be legal. But gun ownership is not only a fundamental constitutional right, it is a proven way to reduce crime and save lives.

Source: John Barnes, "Legal Gun Ownership Saves Lives," Washington Policy Center, May 17, 2006.

Of course, there are blank spots in the cited statistics above, but some trends are obvious. Deterrence is not a big headline grabber, but it does change the dynamics of who does what to whom and when. Indeed there are untold instances on record of someone "successfully" defending themselves and others against intruders, but of course the liberal media avoids these stories. What's more disturbing is the fact that often the surprised but alert homeowner is hauled into court to defend himself against charges, while the intruder skirts off. It's an outrage.

Criminals use guns illegally with impunity, and yet the system coddles them. Meanwhile law abiders are demonized, and if the anti-gun lobby has its way, soon they will be criminalized. Ironically, perhaps only then will the system begin to work in their favor again.

But don't take my word for it. Google the web using these four keywords: gun ownership saves lives. There are lots of stories supporting the data. One merely has to be open to the information.

Gun Control: Amazing What One Has To Believe

Gun Control
Gun Control Is An Empty Gesture
...to believe in gun control.

  • That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.
  • That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn't really want to shoot you and he'll let you go, but that you should give him your wallet, because he'll shoot you if you don't.
  • That Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control.
  • That "NYPD Blue" and "Miami Vice" are documentaries.
  • That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
  • That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat to world peace, and China, Pakistan and Korea can be trusted with nuclear weapons.
  • That Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
  • That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
  • That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
  • That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
  • That the "right of the people peaceably to assemble," the "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the states.
  • That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1917.
  • That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.
  • That private citizens can't have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and private citizens can't have assault rifles, because they are military weapons.
  • That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.
  • That it is reasonable to jail people for carrying but not using guns, but outrageous to jail people for possessing marijuana.
  • That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it's for possessing a gun.
  • That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights and a sign of fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable solution to the "gun problem."
  • That the first amendment absolutely allows child pornography and threats to kill cops, but doesn't apply to manuals on gun repair.
  • That a woman in a microskirt, perfume, and a Wonderbra, without underwear, is a helpless victim, but someone getting paid $6 an hour to deliver the cash from a fast food place to the bank at the same time every night is, "asking for it." And you won't allow either of them to carry a gun.
  • That Illinois' law that allows any government official from Governor to dogcatcher to carry a gun is reasonable, and the law that prohibits any private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a million dollar jewelry business, is reasonable. And it isn't a sign of police statism.
  • That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self defense only justifies bare hands.
  • That with the above, a 90 lb woman attacked by a 300 lb rapist and his 300 lb buddy, has the "right" to kill them in self defense, provided she uses her bare hands.
  • That gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence, but sex education in school doesn't encourage kids to have sex.
  • That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950's and 1960's, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.
  • That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time, and anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
  • That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, and that cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren't aware of the dangers involved with guns.
  • That the gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
  • That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, and the increase in crime requires more gun control.
  • That 100 years after its founding, the NRA got into the politics of guns from purely selfish motives, and 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the black civil rights movement was founded from purely noble motives.
  • That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, and statistics that show increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
  • That we don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, and we should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments of that Constitution, thereby becoming an oppressive government.
  • That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to the fabric of society.
  • That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
  • That guns cause crime, which is why there are so many mass slayings at gun shows.
  • That guns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army only has 3 million of them.
  • That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
  • That the Constitution protects us, so we don't need guns, and can confiscate them, thereby violating the 5th amendment of that constitution.
  • That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, yet a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen."
  • That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, and gunmakers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
  • That a handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
  • That a majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population used to support owning slaves.
  • That one should ignore as idiots politicians who confuse Wicca with Satanism and exaggerate the gay community as a threat to society, but listen sagely to politicians who can refer to a self-loading small arm as a "weapon of mass destruction" and an "assault weapon."
  • That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has machinegun toting guards.
  • That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.
  • That a woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
  • That guns should be banned because of the danger involved, and live reporting from the battlefield, which can keep the enemy informed of troop deployments, getting thousands of troops killed and perhaps losing a war, is a protected act that CANNOT be compromised on.
  • That the right of online child pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is a constitutionally protected extension of the Bill of Rights, and the claim that handguns are for self defense is merely an excuse, and not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
  • That the ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
  • That a house with a gun is three times as likely to have a murder, just like a house with insulin is three times as likely to have a diabetic.
  • That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need larger capacity magazines than civilians, who must face criminals alone, and therefore need less ammunition.
  • That we should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns, too.
  • That guns have no legitimate use, but alcohol does, which is why we issue cops beer instead of guns.
  • That police and soldiers are the dregs of society who were unfit to get any real job, which perfectly qualifies them with the high moral standards and keen intellects to handle these complicated tools and be our guardians.
  • Copyright 1999, 2000 by Michael Z. Williamson
    Permission is granted to copy in part or in total for non-profit purposes, provided due credit is given.