Why Gun Control Is Not Acceptable

After a mass shooting, predictably, the mainstream media and many leftists came after anyone who dared to defend gun rights and the Constitution and stand in their way of a plethora of gun control proposals - none of which, even gun control proponents like Dianne Feinstein admit, would have prevented the shootings.  None of which, most gun owners agree, would pass Constitutional muster.  Europe, with extraordinarily strict gun control regulations in place, has more mass shooting deaths per-capita than the United States.  The US has a homicide rate less than over a hundred other nations- nearly all of which have strict gun control laws in place.  Nevertheless, many on the left scream for the government to 'do something' to solve the problem.  To many on the right, asking the government to solve any problem is akin to asking a dog to solve an algebra equation - it's simply not possible, nor in this case is it legal.  If homicides or suicides were a crime that gun control could prevent, then the other nations around the world with strict gun control would be far safer than the US, but they simply are not.  The data is clear.  The reaction of the right is to ensure that people have the right to protect themselves from madmen and tyrants- as shootings demonstrate are a real world threat.  We protect everything of value in our society with firearms, except our children at school.  That is absolutely absurd.  The reaction of the left is to attack those on the right, even though law abiding gun owners have nothing to do with these shootings, other than deterring them through their presence (where allowed)...

Statistically, the US has a relatively low violent crime rate when compared to the rest of the world, but even if it did not - gun control has never been shown to make anyone safer.  In fact, according to the latest estimates, over 250 MILLION people in the 20th Century alone were killed by democide - murdered by their own government - and in every instance, the people were first disarmed by their governments, which followed firearm registration.  So those who propose that any gun control scheme will save even a few lives have to square that with the literally millions of lives that gun control costs through democide, as recent history teaches us.  Somehow omitting them from the conversation is to ignore the quarter of a billion people whose lives were taken by despots and tyrants.  It is particularly frightening how quickly such a regime can take hold.  Looking at the intolerance by the left of disparate opinions and positions.  Many on the left, including "Antifa" tends to label anyone to the right of Communism as a Nazi and call for them to be violently attacked and even killed- and this is modern America.  Can you imagine how quickly things could turn if people and groups like that were to take power?  It's important to also consider the number of times that guns are used in the US defensively - to directly save lives by preventing violent crimes - estimates of which vary (including government estimates) from several hundred thousand to millions of times a year.  In Warren vs. DC, the US Supreme Court ruled that the government / police have no duty to protect citizens from crime.  Therefore, it's up to each individual to protect themselves and their loved ones.

The Constitution cannot simply be ignored or whitewashed.  Any intellectually honest gun control proponent, who actually understands the Second Amendment, will admit that first, they need to amend the Constitution and repeal the Second Amendment before commencing with the schemes that they propose.  There is a process for amending the Constitution and that is the process that they should pursue.  It involves gaining support from 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the state legislatures.  And that is a prerequisite for most gun control schemes, as they nearly all infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The Second Amendment 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."  The text of the Second Amendment is very clear, especially taken in context with the writings of the founders who put it into the Constitution.   The militia, per US code in 1791 consisted of all able bodied men from the age of 18-45 and was the primary means of a community's protection at the time, and that is why the Second Amendment applies to all people, as individuals.  Here are just a few quotes from the founders:
  • “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
  • "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson
  • "To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason
  • "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They 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
  • "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster
  • "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry
The US Supreme Court affirmed the clarity of the Second Amendment in the 2008 decision Heller vs DC with these quotes:
  • "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
  • "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way."
  • "Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
  • "Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment."
  • "The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it“shall not be infringed.”
  • "As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”
The last point above is one of the most poignant in that the Supreme Court recognizes that the right to armed self-defense is a right is a natural right that comes from our Creator, and is not a right granted by government, or even by the Constitution, it's merely recognized by that document.  Therefore, even if the Second Amendment were to be legally repealed, tens of millions of American's would respond with "so what?"

Confiscation is not a realistic proposal in America.  In America, firearms have been a way of life and are firmly entrenched.  There are an estimated 400-500 million firearms in the US, for a population of 320 million people.  Gun control proponents see this as a bad thing, while gun proponents point to the quantity as a check against tyrannical government power [as it was meant to be by the founders] and a contributor to the relatively low crime rate in the US.  Most American gun owners are wise enough to know that history demonstrates that registration is always a prerequisite to confiscation.  Thus, there is no national firearm registration requirement in the US, with the exception of NFA items (machine guns, suppressors, etc.).  If there were, the vast majority would likely ignore such a requirement.  The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and most gun owners weigh any firearm laws passed against the Constitution.  Most gun owners have decided to comply, hesitantly, with the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 because the restrictions aren't overly onerous in the view of many gun owners, even though many do see those acts as a direct violation of the Second Amendment.  When gun control reaches the point where it becomes unreasonable and is clearly infringing upon (or threatening to infringe upon, in the case of registration) the right of the people to keep and bear arms, most will simply ignore those illegal laws, regardless of what the courts decide.  As evidence for this claim, let's take a look at some registration and confiscation schemes that have been tried in the United States.  In 1990, New Jersey, bastion of the left, implemented an 'assault weapons' ban on the possession of certain semi-automatic rifles with certain features.  After a year, of the estimated 100,000-300,000 affected weapons, owners surrendered a total of... four weapons.  14 others were confiscated.  In 2008, Connecticut passed a law requiring registration, and an estimated 15% complied with the law.  New York passed a similar law and had a 5% compliance rate.  And these are all in leftist states.  In the rest of America, compliance will be far lower.  In the end, any attempt at forced confiscation would undoubtedly result in a civil war.  In a situation where the elected (or unelected) rulers decide to violate the Constitution and natural rights and undertake firearm confiscation, a large portion of the military and law enforcement apparatus would not only refuse to follow such an order, as many have publicly stated they would do, but many will actively turn on and resist those attempting to implement such a confiscation.  Thus, many of the law enforcement and military assets would immediately change 'sides' and join the people resisting such confiscation.  In such a scenario, supply lines cannot be maintained and there is no way for the remaining confiscation assets to operate.  Assuming only a third of well-armed Americans actively resist, that's roughly 30-40 million people, most of whom would be operating in guerrilla fashion as was the case in Vietnam and Afghanistan.  The entire US Military, including National Guard, if no one changed sides, is only 1.4 million strong.  That puts into perspective just how ridiculous the notion of confiscation is.

The gulf between the left and the right on this issue is simply too wide for there to be understanding between them.  To most on the right, gun control- and the millions of lives that it has cost around the world, is not an acceptable proposal in the United States.

Comments

David Bottomley said…
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/03/12/why-democrats-would-lose-the-second-civil-war-too-n2459833
David Bottomley said…
http://monsterhunternation.com/2018/11/19/the-2nd-amendment-is-obsolete-says-congressman-who-wants-to-nuke-omaha/?fbclid=IwAR0X5-7imAgvp2XxEFqwwRizf9603bQpDkTz93dhOSpIgOb1UDhZD58I3R8

Popular posts from this blog

Coronavirus / COVID-19

Normalcy Bias

5G and the History of Cellular Networks