Gun Rights in America: The Heart of Liberty
The United States of America was founded by a group of people unwilling to further tolerate tyranny and who were willing to give their very lives to establish freedom. More importantly, and equally difficult, these people were willing to take the lives of others to seize their freedom by force. Once this freedom was won, its concept was carefully embodied in the United States Constitution, and became a complex and elegant set of governmental checks and balances that became the law of our land.
Foremost in the constitution was the concept of limiting government in order to protect the individual rights of the people and leave them with sufficient freedom and power so that they could once again successfully revolt against oppression should our government ever become tyrannical or undesirable to the people.
Although the carefully worded constitution, complete with nearly 300 specifically documented rights, was designed to safeguard liberty, many states were willing to ratify it only on the condition that a more explicit set of rules be added to clearly and specifically limit the government's power and protect the rights of the individual. These rules became the ten articles of the Bill of Rights, which most people think of as the first ten amendments to the US Constitution.
Most people believe that the Bill of Rights is a list of rights that we citizens are entitled to. This is NOT the case. In reality, it is a list of things that the US government is forbidden to do. The end result is the same, but this method of protecting individual rights clearly shows that the founders correctly realized that individual rights stem from denying the government power over its citizens rather than tritely granting them rights that could one day be revoked. The preamble to the bill of rights includes the following words:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
This clearly shows how critical it was to the founders of our nation that the bill of rights be held absolutely inviolate, and is utterly essential to maintaining the freedom they fought for. Always keep this in mind when reading the constitution, the bill of rights, and any piece of legislation.
Although all 10 articles of the Bill of Rights are worthy of attention and should be well known to all US citizens, this treatise will focus on the one that makes all of the other rights possible and meaningful: Article II, also known as the second amendment. It reads:
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 should be easy to understand, but many people ignore or misinterpret it. Simply put, it says an armed citizenry is essential to the existence of freedom and the government has no right whatsoever to prevent citizens from keeping and even carrying or transporting weapons. For those of you who do not realize it, YOU are part of that "well regulated Militia" as defined under Title 10, section 31 of the U.S. Code:
The militia of each state includes "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are or have [made] a declaration of intent to become citizens."
All American men are REQUIRED to register for the draft upon turning 18 because we are legally part of a well regulated militia. This doesn't mean just gun nuts, right wing extremists, etc., but all able bodied males, be they pacifists, liberals, conservatives or whatever.
Unfortunately, most Americans don't understand the value of the average citizen keeping and maintaining arms to defend themselves. They fear all guns and don't believe that most people can use and keep them responsibly. Thus they vote for truly stupid and difficult to enforce laws that keep our citizenry from obtaining and bearing arms. This is unfortunate because the second amendment is literally the power that backs up, supports and enforces the remainder of the constitution.
Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao Tse Tung, the Taliban and nearly any other tyrannical and despotic government you can name disarmed their people as the first serious step towards enslaving and/or killing them. This is not a bunch of right wing gun nut rhetoric. It is basic history that I strongly encourage you to research and verify. Don't take my word for it. Do a search on the internet (go to any search engine, such as dogpile, and type "genocide and gun control" in the search field) or visit a library.
For those of you who believe that it is safer for your neighbors to be unarmed so that they cannot hurt you, take a moment and carefully analyze those thoughts and apply some logic. First of all, do you truly believe that the average person is out to get you and is more likely to harm you than help defend you? Do you believe that your trusted friend, colleague or loved one should not be permitted a weapon for self defense because they may one day use it against you?
If so, let's pretend for the sake of argument that you are right. Out of all the people that you believe are out to hurt you, how many do you think own deadly weapons other than guns? Do any by chance have kitchen knives that they could stab you with? Could they use a can of gasoline to burn down your house while you sleep? What about their son's baseball bat or their daughter's bike chain to cave in your skull? Do they have a car they could run over you with? Chainsaw? Axe? Crowbar? What about a big rock?
Now, take the above list of possible murder weapons, and assume we outlaw big rocks. After all, big rocks don't really serve a purpose, so why should anybody have one, right? Now pretend that this person who you think is out to get you lives next door to you and has been denied access to big rocks. He still has his chainsaw, baseball bat, gasoline, knives, car, etc. etc. and still is bent on harming you. Do you feel safer? Do you really think he won't come for you now that you took away his rock? Why not invite him over to dinner or ask him to watch your kids, as after all, what harm could he do without his big rock?
If it seems silly to use "outlawing big rocks" as an analogy to gun control, think of how much sillier it would be to outlaw guns when there are countless statistics showing how good, honest people stop crimes over SIX THOUSAND TIMES PER DAY throughout our nation by simply pointing a gun at would-be rapists, thieves, car jackers, kidnappers and murders. They rarely ever have to shoot. It is estimated that there are between 25 and 75 lives saved by guns for every life taken with a gun. According to the Department of Justice's National Crime Victimazation Survey, a passive and non-resisting women is 2.5 times more likely to be seriously harmed by an attacker than a women with a gun. CRIME HAS GONE UP dramatically in countries that have recently outlawed guns. Guns remain easily available to criminals in spite of restrictive laws and criminals disregard weapon bans (after all, they ARE criminals and by definition don't respect the laws of the land). Gun control limits good people's ability to defend themselves, empowers criminals and increases crime. Los Angeles and Washington D.C. are two great examples of places where guns are mostly outlawed and yet violent crime is increasing.
Case in point:
The Assault Weapons Ban was supposedly needed to take away a single person's ability to massacre a lot of people at one time using high capacity weapons. In March, 1999, the National Institute of Justice issued the report ''Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-1996.'' Here's an excerpt: ''The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.'' If outlawing them doesn't help, why do it at all? If banning them doesn't work, why not spend the vast amount of money wasted on gun control on something more useful to society?Countries that have tried gun control have experienced a severe increase in crime. There is not exaggeration. Look it up. Research crime in England and Australia, since they outlawed guns a few years ago. You will find that crime went WAY up. In the US, most home robberies occur while people are out of the house. In England, 50% of the robberies happen while people are home! Doesn't that scare you? It makes sense. A robber can confidently walk into a home he knows will contain unarmed people, hold a knife or gun to the head of child and say, "Mommy, put $10,000 worth of stuff in a pile in front of me or I'll stab/shoot your kid". Wouldn't you at least like a chance to shoot the burglar before he does that? Or far better, wouldn't you like the burglar to be afraid that you are armed and either skip over your house, wait until your family is out of the house, or best of all, quit breaking into houses altogether because too many of his friends got shot while attempting to steal?
For those who have qualms about the morality of using a firearm to take the life of an attacker, do you really think it better that you or your loved one should die at the hands of a malicious attacker when you might have the power to prevent it? Would you rather let a David Westerfield (convicted kidnapper, brutal molester and murderer) run off with your child and commit rape, torture or worse when all you had to do is scare him off with a gun? For that matter, would you really prefer someone to be able to rob you of valued possessions, family heirlooms, and more with impunity? If so, you not only let yourself and loved ones become victims, you also embolden and encourage criminals because you show them just how easy it can be to get away with crime. Even the Dali Lama once stated that it is reasonable to shoot someone who is trying to kill you.
The most essential component to personal liberty, safety and security is the ability to defend yourself and the will to fight for survival and freedom. A government should rule with the willing tolerance of citizens who have the power to remove the government should it ever become oppressive. Imagine if 10% of the Jews were armed, organized and had a will to fight at the time Adolf was building crematoriums. Sure, the Nazis could have sent tanks and machine guns, but they would have had a hard time convincing their troops to engage in a shooting war in the middle of German cities against German citizens. Even if such a ploy succeeded, Germany would not have been in an economic or military position to attempt world domination as it would have been dealing with the brutal losses caused by a civil war. It was far simpler to disarm Germany and then slowly isolate Jews and transport them out of the public eye where they could be "disposed of". Can any of you even conceive of the heavily armed and alert citizens of Israel being made to quietly disappear? I think not.
(Note: The author is aware that guns were first outlawed in Germany in 1928, long before the Nazi's were legally elected to power and that the Jews were already for the most part unarmed. Also, the Jews were loyal German citizens and did not resist in the beginning probably because they did not wish to betray their lawfully elected government. Nevertheless, the Nazis DID feel it necessary to further disarm the Jews in 1938 and IF a significant number of Jews had been both armed and willing to resist, things would have turned out much differently.)There are countless examples in today's news on how guns could be used for a good cause. Every time you wince at a story of a criminal using a gun for crime, don't react by wishing away guns but rather think of how different the crime may have turned out if the VICTIM had been armed. I could go on indefinitely at the risk of loosing your interest, but I think I've proven my point. Armed citizens are free whereas unarmed people are victims waiting to happen. Safe, reasonable and responsible gun ownership is a good thing. It reduces and prevents crime and provides the ultimate check against tyranny. I beseech you to really research this issue and support pro-gun groups and politicians. Below are a list of links to some organizations that will keep you informed on gun related issues and help you fight to preserve your second amendment rights, which in turn protects you and your children from both crime and tyranny. Please do not sit by and watch while our essential rights are taken away.
Why not just outlaw "the bad ones" and make us all safer?
Because it's unconstitutional and because it doesn't work. Also, it doesn't ever stop with just outlawing "the bad" ones. Here's the typical evolution of gun control:
Registration and Impediments:
Gun control starts out as "registration" programs, where the government keeps tabs on who has what kind of guns. Emboldened by this success, the anti-gun crowd then moves to make it more difficult to buy guns.
Example: I have to wait 10 days for the "cooling off" period before I can take possession of a gun I buy. Even though I have passed a background check many times, have taken a shooting safety course, am a certified firearms instructor and range safety officer and already own several other guns, supposedly this 10 day waiting period will keep me from committing a crime of passion with the new gun. If a gang member threatens my family, I still have to wait 10 days before I can buy a gun to defend them from within my own home! If a woman narrowly beats off a rapist outside of her home, it's still 10 days before she can have a gun, so she better hope the attacker waits 10 days before his next attempt. (Besides, even if she could get a gun that same day, it would be against the law for her to carry it unless she had gone through 6 months or so of paperwork and classes and was able to convince her county sheriff she had a valid reason for carrying one.)
Selective Banning:
Next comes selective banning. In my state I can't buy a rifle with a pistol grip, though it is ok to have a pistol or a shotgun with a pistol grip. I can't have a thumb hole in a rifle stock. I can't buy a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. I think this is supposed to slow me down if I go on a killing spree, though it only takes me 1.5 seconds to switch magazines so it wouldn't slow me down much. I can only buy one new hand gun per month, but I can buy as many as I want from a private party and as many long barreled rifles or shotguns as like. How does any of this make sense or increase public safety? It just makes it more annoying when a person tries to buy a gun and it means many of the guns that a person legally bought and registered now have to be given back to the government at a huge financial loss to the lawful owner.
Total Banning:
The banning gets more and more aggressive until they are all banned. England and Australia have both done this, starting with a registration program in early 1990's and ending with gun bans. Canada is trying this, but the people thankfully aren't cooperating and many provinces have announced that they will not enforce these laws.
Banning of New Things:
Now that Australia ran out of guns to ban, they've moved onto laser pointers and swords. What's next? Hammers? Cricket Bats? England has made most forms of self defense illegal and only the government has the right to use force as a defense. You can't carry anything specifically for the purpose of self defense as that implies the intent to cause a crime. Example: It is legal to carry a hefty flashlight in order to light your path and if you are attacked, you can probably get away with using it as an impromptu club, providing you can convince the police/court it was a spontaneous weapon of the moment. If you admit that you were carrying a big MagLite to beat off attackers and not just to light your path, your act of carrying a flash light was a crime.)
The Police have NO legal duty to protect individuals
Most people think that the police both can and must protect us. This is a myth and has been ruled as untrue by many courts of law. There have often been attempts by individuals to sue police forces and officers for failing to come to their aid in a timely manner. In general, the courts usually side with the police forces. I believe that most police officers are good minded people would risk their safety to prevent an innocent from being harmed. I am not writing this to malign the people who try to protect us, but rather am pointing out that the police are incapable of being at all places at all times and are not compelled by law to protect any specific individuals.
There was a particularly heinous case of a 14yr old girl being gang raped and brutalized by a group in Central Park (New York) and a nearby police officer did not stop the crime. This took place during a parade in which large crowds of people were gathered. Throughout the day more than 50 women were surrounded, groped, stripped, molested and in some cases raped. Many of these victims reported the attacks to the police, yet the 950 police officers on duty at that time in Central Park did not disperse the crowds, stop the rampant drug and alcohol use or prevent these crimes from happening.
If you doubt the veracity of the above examples, go to a search engine such as Google, and enter the following search terms or click on the links below (use the quotes or you'll get all kinds of unrelated stuff):
"Police have no legal duty to protect" "Police have no obligation to protect" "Police did nothing"
Now let's use some logic here. If the police can't always protect you and aren't even legally obligated to do so, who does that leave to keep you safe? It leaves you, and you alone. Thus, learn some basic self defense skills, practice good situational awareness and own viable tools of self defense, such as a firearm. In the hands of a moderately trained person, a firearm is more effective than any other self defense weapon. Chemicals such as pepper spray can be affected by wind, and have different degrees of effectiveness on different people. Most stun guns need to be held to a muscular portion of an attacker's body for 3-4 seconds before they completely disable the attacker. How would you like to be a 5'5" 120lb female trying to hold a stun gun to the body of a 6 foot tall, 220lb attacker bolstered by drugs and in the mood to rape? A firearm the same size as an average stun gun can drop that attacker in his tracks before you are even close enough to touch or be touched by him.
For More Information
Check the gun control portion of our links page. For a great 1 hour movie that clearly illustrates how gun control harms innocent people and empowers evil, view the JPFO's award winning movie, Innocents Betrayed.
If you aren't quite ready to join a group, consider visiting places where gun owners interact and communicate and get a better feel for the average gun owner and/or gun activist. Take a basic shooting class for about $50, learn something about guns, talk with the people who show up to learn, the instructor, etc. Make it a family event and bring your spouse and kids. Visit GunBroker.com's discussion forums and other such places where you can see how patriotic, anti-crime and upstanding pro-gun people can be. Give yourself a chance to learn that pro-gun doesn't mean white supremacist psycho killer but is more synonymous with terms like "patriot", "proud American", "family man", "concerned mom", "loving wife", "law enforcement officer", "veteran", etc.
