Gun control or citizen control

“A well-regulated militia being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” That is the entire text on the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, the guarantee that the federal government cannot disarm the states. The drafters of the 2nd Amendment were not referring to hunting; they were referring to the natural right to defend your other natural rights. The Founders had just used the guns a tyrannical, oppressive government tried to confiscate to stand up and demand the recognition of their natural rights. People must have the right to defend their families and private property from those who may try to take it, whether criminals or tyrants. In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown, the anti-gun agenda is in full swing, quickly using the emotion generated from the latest crisis to push a political agenda. Senator Feinstein has pledged to reinstitute the “assault weapon” ban, although she has a concealed carry permit and has admitted to carrying a gun to protect herself. Vice President Biden has been tasked with developing recommendations on how to curtail gun violence. We are now told that President Obama will announce his plans for gun control on Wednesday, January 16. The plan includes as many as 19 executive orders, as reported as well as some legislative items. I am against the use of executive orders, it does not matter whether the President is a republican or a democrat, Article 2 of the United States Constitution give no such power to the executive, however that has not stopped Presidents from issuing them, Obama has issued over 151 is his first four years, with nearly twenty more coming tomorrow. One thing for sure, any measures taken will be constitutionally questionable and will only address those that follow the law. Criminals do not follow laws, so it’s pretty ridiculous to think that more laws will curb the problem. If laws worked, we would not have murder or the war on drugs. Law abiding citizens do not break laws; laws restricting the rights of law abiding citizens only benefit the criminal, who has no intention of following them. Tomorrow we will find out how much liberty we will be forced to trade for the illusion of more security. Please see my examiner article here for links and sources.

Gun control

It has been more than a week since the tragic school shooting in Connecticut on December 14 and there have been calls from everything to increasing the number of guns to banning them outright. I am not going to talk about the incident; I prefer to let the victims and families deal with their mourning in privacy. I would not want reporters shoving cameras and microphones in my face if I had to deal with a tragedy. Also, I refuse to mention the suspects name or anything about the events of that day or leading up to it. I, in no way want to sensationalize or publicize the actions in hopes that there is not another lunatic wanting to one up the latest school shooting or copy the crime to achieve his 2 weeks of infamy. I think the mainstream media should treat these incidents in the same way, but the last thing I want is a law stating what can and cannot be reported. Instead, I want to focus the debate that has risen out of the tragedy, gun control. I was always taught that gun control meant using both hands; know your target and surroundings (meaning know what you’re shooting at and what’s behind your target and next to your target). It means always having control of your weapon, safe handling, care and training. To some, gun control means banning guns from individual ownership. Most won’t come right out and say it, but that’s the ultimate goal. All of the gun control measures are determined to restrict ownership of firearms. The one weapon that always comes up for banning are the so called “assault weapons”, which are really just military looking semi-automatic rifles. The federal ban on “assault weapons” expired in 2004 and studies from the CDC and National Research Council found no noticeable effect on crime. The University of Pennsylvania submitted a report to the Dept. of Justice stating that renewing the ban would little effect on the crime rate. The main reason is “assault weapons” are only used in approximately 10% of crimes involving guns. Proponents of banning “assault weapons” claim there is no reason someone would need to own such a weapon, they are not used for hunting. I would take you back to the Rodney King riots in LA where a shop owner protected his private property against a group of looters, using his “assault weapon.” Let’s take a look at the history of gun bans. We can start in 1930’s Germany and move into Soviet Russia and keep going into China. Those countries successfully disarmed their opposition and the result was disastrous for its citizens. Hitler prohibited Jews from gun ownership and they suffered one of the worst atrocities in the history of the world. Stalin massacred tens of millions of his own people, ethnic minorities and peasants. Of course, Mao did the same thing, killing millions of his fellow countrymen. In contrast, look at Switzerland. The Swiss government trains and arms its citizens and it enjoys one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Gun ownership does not mean higher crime just like strict gun control does not mean less crime. England, where citizens are mostly unarmed, has the highest violent crime rate in the world.