A serious moment here. As a Libertarian and freedom advocate, I enthusiastically support keeping the Second Amendment intact. Bottom line, without the second, there is no first. Without the first… well, imagine that for a minute.
Unarmed citizens are easier to control. The Founders knew that. They were so convinced the right to bear arms is an essential liberty, they wrote the amendments just to cement certain guarantees.
The Second Amendment was put in place to allow citizens to
protect themselves, either from an attacker or from a government gone bad, either ours or another's.
Obama said he wouldn't take our guns and I believe he won't. Not outright, anyway. Like gun control advocates before him, the plan is to take away little liberties from every aspect of gun ownership, making it as difficult and expensive as possible. In the end, I believe he will take the guns if he can think of a good excuse. I believe all governments prefer unarmed citizens.
The Ammunition Accountability Act has been introduced in 18 states. The U.S. government wants every bullet encoded so that each bullet you buy will be registered in your name. The stated intent being that, when a criminal uses a gun, said criminal will be traceable.
I know. Pretty ridiculous, eh?
Criminals don't buy their guns or their bullets legally… they steal someone else's or buy them on the black market after they've already been stolen or illegally purchased. Then they use those weapons in crimes. Except for madmen like Hennard, the shooter at Luby's. He bought at least one of his guns legally. But, then, he wasn't trying to hide, was he?
Our elected representatives are either stupid enough to believe this would work or as sinister as Alex Jones says they are. Either way, it's bad news for us. Obviously, the only people who will be kept track of with gun laws are law-abiding citizens.
Imagine a world where only criminals and cops are freely armed. Who benefits? I can only think of criminals and cops. Who am I leaving out?
In every place where guns have been banned, armed aggression by criminals has skyrocketed. Skyrocketed. In the UK, armed aggression is at frightening levels and citizens are jailed after defending themselves. The terribly proper and law-abiding Brits lost their right to bear arms. They see what a big mistake that was. Now even terribly proper British grammas and grampas are fighting to get it back. And they are warning us not to let it go.
An Obonus: along with the Ammo Act in the states, H.R. 45, Obama's first gun registration bill, is in Congress. This will require a fingerprint, psychological exam, and tests on gun cleaning, caring, etc. before being allowed to purchase a gun. One would think this would be helpful in curbing crime, but criminals won't take these tests!!! They don't buy their guns from a gun shop. Everyone knows that but legislators, apparently.
And wanna-be criminals with no record will pass them. Hennard is now believed to have been schizophrenic, but had never been
diagnosed. He would have passed the tests. I know a lot of
crazy people who act sane, even if only briefly.
Speaking of crazy, did you know every school shooter was on an SSRI? Every single one. Seems like we are banning the wrong thing.
And why do mad murderers choose gun free zones to do their killing? Hmmmm, gee, that's a tough one. Personally, I want my kids going to school where everyone is armed to the teeth. Oh, wait, they do.
Gun registration and a multitude of tests will be totally useless when
it comes to curbing crime. Once again, the only people affected by
these laws will be law-abiding citizens.
"So what?" some people say. "So you are inconvenienced in the hope of stopping one senseless murder." Here's what: since every bit of research and history says these laws won't prevent even one single senseless murder and will, in fact, make your immediate world more dangerous, they are simply a further incursion on our privacy and freedoms. "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." (Ben Franklin) I'm not willing to sacrifice an essential liberty, not even a tiny little infringement.
If loss of an essential liberty isn't a concern, there's this: since these laws have no hope of success, they are a monumental waste of time and only create more bureaucracy, more paperwork, more taxes and more pensions for more government employees at our direct expense while law-abiding citizens are out of work, out of pensions and out of homes.
At the very least, we must tell our representatives to stop wasting our resources, in this case, their time on our dime. If they want to curb crime, tell them to think of some productive way to get that job done besides making everything illegal or else go home. At least that way, they can't do any more damage.
Remind them while you have them on the phone, that if they vote yes to your no (or vice versa), you will vote no for them next time around and encourage like-minded friends to do the same. People who take the time to call their representatives take the time to vote and your reps know it. It's all about keeping the job.
UPDATE: I just wrote to my Congress people here. On the right, about a third down the page, you can enter your zip code to Find Your Officials. Directly under Write Your Elected Officials, is a link to your Federal and your State reps. I chose Federal for the H.R. 45 bill and wrote to my three People in one letter. The Ammo Act was not introduced in FL.
You can also keep track of what bills are before your people right now. Then, you can sign up to be notified every time your people vote and how they voted. That's handy. Here's my letter:
"I am a registered voter and I vote. I am active and vocal. If I were a one issue voter, protecting my Second Amendment rights would be the issue.
I request that you vote NO on H.R. 45. This bill will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, it will not protect children or adults. It will only make gun ownership by law-abiding citizens more difficult and expensive. And it will make each of us less safe in our homes.
The only people who will be monitored by gun registration laws are law-abiding citizens, not the criminals who are presumably targeted by legislation like this.
Useless legislation wastes tax dollars and your time on our dime. This bill will not curb crime, it will only create more bureaucracy, more paperwork, more taxes and more pensions for more government employees at our direct expense while law-abiding citizens are out of work, out of pensions and out of homes. If Congress can't think of effective ways to curb crime, just go home.
Gun control laws only work for criminals and cops, a fact our Founders knew only too well. Imagine a world where only criminals and cops have access to firearms.
Vote NO on H.R. 45."
Great article! Let’s hope our Americans friends are not the same as us ‘proper’ Brits who have allowed the government to tell us what’s best for us and removed all guns from law abiding citizens so that once again, it’s only the crooks that have them…
Legalize drugs and many of the crimes committed with gun in hand of perpetrator, would decrease. I, the law abiding home dweller, wouldn’t need a gun to point at the intruder in my home who is there for the sole purpose of stealing something to sell for his/her drug habit. STOP THE WAR ON DRUGS, LEGALIZE THEM…crime goes down, the need for guns goes down and all accomplished without gun control legislation. This is an old tune but worthy of mentioning in the same breath as gun control.
For the people that are so concerned about being the victims of violent acts, why don’t you use that fear and energy to motivate yourself into excellent physical shape? If you train every day then you can become an excellent physical specimen much more able to protect yourself and deter physical attack.
But the average gun owning American wants to watch TV and news shows six hours a day, sitting on the couch, not exercising, consuming a poor diet and buying into the fear hysteria the networks are selling. There should be a mandatory physical exam to go with gun ownership otherwise you get unfit retards owning and discharging lethal force in inappropriate scenarios leading to statistics like this:
In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes.
Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, et al. “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home.” NEJM 329:15 (1993):1084-1091.
Also it is a very poor idea to have lethal firearms accessible in a household supporting children and teenagers who in many cases demonstrate unsound decision making. They should have the opportunity to make mistakes that do not often times end in fatality.
Thank you, Scott. And Deb: wiser words were never spake!!! The drug war is not only lost, but has created so much violence and corruption, our government is sinking under the weight.
Well, Carson, I appreciate your point of view, but I disagree on many levels.
As irrelevant as it is to the question of gun ownership, there is no doubt that being in great physical shape will make me safer from attack. Never the less, if I were in the best shape of my life I’d barely weigh more than a hundred pounds (those were the days). Even then I could neither out run nor out fight even a smallish male attacker, let alone more than one. An armed assailant would be out of the question.
I know quite a few gun owners. Most gun owners I know are unusually well informed and read a lot more than the average Simpson’s fan. I’ve lived in towns and counties where the gun owners talked like the guys in Deliverance and many who didn’t graduate high school… but those guys and gals respect a gun and know how to handle it.
If I’ve been scared by TV violence reports, you have been scared by anti-gun propaganda. You believe you are three times safer in your home than reckless, armed fatties like me? I can’t see how that’s true.
If you think your home is safer because you are unarmed, I would never suggest you be forced to keep a pistol in your pocket. I only expect the same consideration from you.
Dr. Kellerman is a researcher with an agenda <http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-43.html#fn1>. His work is as biased as it is flawed. His organization at Emory is a member of the radical victim disarmament group Christoffel’s Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan.
Perhaps you could read some of what I consider the more credible research of John Lott <http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html>, But, if not, surely you can find someone to follow on the issue who is less deeply committed to the safety-through-helplessness orthodoxy than Kellerman.
No anti-gun letter is complete without a little fear mongering about “the children.” Man, do I get sick of that. The implication is that you are more concerned for my darlings than I am, and that I, a silly, dumb, scared gun-nut, don’t realize the terrible danger to which I’m exposing my luckless brood.
We’ve taught our boys from a young age how to handle guns safely and responsibly. I judge that I am more likely to defend my children than I am to shoot them. I don’t care to have the option of defending them taken away from me on the far off chance I might kill them or they themselves. All we can do is manage risk. We can’t eliminate it. I’m far more likely to kill them with my driving. Just ask my husband.
Guns are inanimate tools, no less than saws, hammers, and crowbars, all of which work excellently well as murder weapons. All of which can be dangerous to the careless user.
As Hal likes to point out, “Wyoming was the first state to let women vote, but Samuel Colt made them equal to men.”
Good people need guns because there are so many bad people in the world. Making good people helpless will not make bad people harmless.
“why don’t you use that fear and energy to motivate yourself into excellent physical shape?”
because no matter in what shape I am ….it won’t matter that much to a piece of metal flying straight at my skull at 1300 feet per second, of course I agree with motivating myself into excellent aim in able to put a bullet at someone that is trying to kill me
the proponents of ‘get in shape’ are of course more than welcome to try this theory with me while I pretend to be a ‘bad guy shooting at them with bullets’ and then try to impress me with how many push ups they can do per second. anyone interested……let me know, we can arrange it 🙂
regarding this “In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes.”
I would like to point out the ‘slight’ problem that the article has which is ” The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home.” DUH,YEAH IF I AM A CRACK ADDICT WELL PERHAPS I AM MORE LIKELY TO KILL OR GET KILLED WITH A GUN IN MY HOUSE THAT IS PROBABLY HOME TO OTHER DRUG ADDICTS OR VIOLENT PEOPLE
I would like to know the answer to this “In homes with guns, how likely is a member of the household to die due to a break in of armed men compared to gun-free homes.”
the study in question of course starts with ‘houses where a homicide has taken place’ in other words….it doesn’t include houses where someone was not murdered because he/she was able to defend themselves
(I know about statistics, its easy to proof almost anything when you know how to manipulate them)
In other words, do I fare better against someone with a gun….while holding a “you are a bad guy and shouldnt have a gun” sign or when I am holding another gun
I would love to be a member of the study..but I rather keep my gun nearby…….