Image

 

 

Guns and America Image

 "They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?" - Patrick Henry

 

 

        Guns and violence are correctly considered to have a strong correlation. Why should people want to own a firearm?  Primarily, this is because one of the most fundamental instincts in man is to be able to defend himself. This is an important consideration when looking at the issue of gun control. This is not the way the opponents of Guns want the debate framed. Those who oppose firearms in the hands of the common people are usually of the opinion that the State should have the ultimate say on who is defended and defensible. If you are poor and live an a crime infested area and police response times to an emergency is 20 minutes, a hand gun in your home would better ensure your safety. If you are very wealthy and live in a privileged area where the police respond within five minutes of an emergency call, then your security is not something for which you may rely on a handgun for. Elitists do not like guns in the hands of people. It is the ultimate expression of freedom. The freedom to defend oneself against an assailant, be they an individual or a group of individuals. This kind of power is looked upon dismally by those who wish to 1) curtail freedom or 2) bring about a state based on terror; or 3) are about to bring about changes that would cause the people to rebel against openly against.

 

A long and concerted effort has been brought to bear to give ultimate power to the state and remove the last vestige of freedom and the right to self defense in this country, that being the right to bear arms. Is often claimed by those who wish to do away with this right that the real purpose was to allow people to hunt game! This is the implied argument used by many, but the idea of the right to bear arms was born of a revolution. A revolution against tyranny and against a King that brought foreign Troops by the thousands in into America and garrisoned them here and her navy, which was, brought menacingly close to America at a time of unrest. The Colonists knew, after a bloody war with her oppressor that had it not been for the arms they possessed they would have been slaves and not freemen, unable choose the form of Government that they, the people wanted.  This was the fundamental question asked by those who framed the constitution. How do we limit the powers of Government, and put the ultimate hands of the fate of the nation in the hands of the people. The Constitution is a document that with almost every line, word, comma and period, limits the power of the Federal Government and clearly delineates what each particular branch of Government can legally do and what it cannot legally do. Not that these wise checks on power are heeded by our leaders today. While many speeches are made about the 'reverence' our politicians have for the constitution, the growing power of the Federal Government is an affront both in letter and in spirit to the form of Government that the founders so wisely inaugurated.

 

Why is there such a rush to get rid of guns? While the average person is correctly concerned with the rise in violence in our society and the need to control access to guns by those inclined to violence, the need to sit back and be circumspect is clearly needed to be fair to those who are afraid of removing that last line of defense the common man has against a criminal or a tyrant.

 

Gun control is a concept that is gaining ground in the world today. From Britain to Australia, gun control advocates are making enormous headway in the psyche of the citizens that the only way to have safe streets is to restrict or do away completely with the right of the people to posses firearms. This concept seems to be generally a good thing as generally, people have a negative opinion of guns themselves. This is a normal and healthy opinion. The world would be a better place without guns, knives, tanks, nuclear weapons, and the likes. Yet human nature through the centuries has not allow for the removal of the means of self defense as a successful alternative. History teaches us what those with weapons do to those without them. This is true in state to state conflict as it is in individual to individual conflict. People with weapons tend to oppress those without the means to defend themselves. This has and probably always will be true. Yet the common wisdom of the day seems to point to the opposite to being true. That wisdom being, that if law-abiding citizens turn in their firearms they will be safer. Somehow this mass show of 'good will' will deter criminals from obtaining firearms and using them against unarmed citizens. This is neither logical nor believable. The specter of Gun Control in both Britain and Australia shows a marked rise in violent crime since the institution of gun confiscation laws.  These facts are ignored by those with an agenda to confiscate guns. But if the real concern is the level of crime in a society, why not call an end to the madness? One must conclude an agenda other than a desire to reduce the crime rate exists and thus, we come to the crux of the matter. Crime is a convenient emotional issue to manipulate people with. The specter of a child being killed by a firearm is a tragedy that only the most hardened felon could ignore. This is being used a shield for an agenda that has little to do with ordinary  "crime". But it may have much to do with a new definition of crime that is only now coming into view.

 

        In the 30's Hitler had very strict Gun Control legislation. This was important to the tyrant as he had his own ideas about who should be safe and who should not. Hitler knew that even in the best of circumstances, there would be resistance to his rule. Thus the removal of guns from the hands of the people was a necessity that was accomplished with gun control laws. Hitler had house to house searches to find weapons in the houses of his political enemies. The Gun Control laws of the 1930's were perfect for the tyrant. Jews of course were banned from owning firearms and many restrictions were placed on ordinary citizens. The SS, of course, was exempt from these laws. I need not recount the eventual end of those who the State deemed to be its enemies. The institution of gun control laws and atrocities can be correlated quite nicely from the Ottoman Empire to the Soviet Union; from China to Uganda. The need to remove the means of defense from the people is essential when large segments of the population are to be mistreated or exterminated. When someone is afraid of the people for some act committed or act about to be committed by those with the power to pass these laws, the necessity of Gun control becomes much clearer.

        In the rush to condemn gun advocates, Hollywood, liberal politicians and others are working very hard to convince Americans that citizens without the means to defend themselves are safer. This non-sequiter argument is taking in a lot of well meaning people who have not fully contemplated the ramification's of the so-called gun control argument.

 

Any law abiding citizen should have hassle free access to a fire arm. The Gun laws on the books today are more than adequete. What needs to happen is rigorous enforcement of existing law, which some liberal politicians have impeded, causing a rise in crime, while calling for more Gun control laws.

 

Now why would they want to go and do a thing like that? Copyright 2000 Mark S. Watson

 

Links

NRA

Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership

Gun Owners of America

 

Image Image

 

Image

         

 

Image
Electronics at Watson's Web!