-Caveat Lector-
from:
http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.10/pageone.html
<A HREF="http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.10/pageone.html">Laissez Faire City Times
- Volume 3 Issue 10</A>
The Laissez Faire City Times
March 8, 1999 - Volume 3, Issue 10
Editor & Chief: Emile Zola
-----
Gun Control Could Destroy the Constitution
by Sunni Maravillosa
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.
U.S. Constitution
That sentence seems so straightforward, doesn�t it? Twenty-seven words.
Yet the debate as to what the Founders meant by the Second Amendment to
the Constitution continues to rage. As the latest escalation in the war
on guns�the lawsuits against gun manufacturers brought by cities across
the country�progresses, "rage" is an apt sentiment for those who value
and strive to uphold the Constitution. While many other political items
get attention from the talking heads and politicians, discontent over
the increasing energy with which the Second Amendment is being attacked
quietly grows. It is a powder keg waiting for a spark.
Many of the gun-grabbers' arguments for restrictions and bans center on
the word "militia". However, the meaning of the term is straightforward:
a military force, especially one comprised of citizens rather than
professional soldiers. Some, in a convoluted interpretation of the word,
claim that the term refers to state militias (e.g., the National Guard).
If the Founders intended to limit gun ownership in this way, no writings
exist to support that interpretation.
The second part of the amendment is also clear, and more difficult for
Newspeak experts to argue away. In those days, "the people" meant
literally that�the citizens of this nation. Indeed, many patriots of
that day are on record as supporting the right of the individual to own
firearms. Samuel Adams� well-known quotation is a good example: "The
Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the
United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Others, recognizing the thin ice underlying linguistic arguments such as
these, take a different tactic. It�s common to hear arguments that the
Founders had no idea that weaponry would advance as it has, leading to
automatic weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds in seconds, missiles
that can strike a target across a continent with deadly accuracy, and
even nuclear weapons with their global capacity for death and
destruction. While that may be true�something I�m loathe to grant, as
Jefferson and others were clearly men of great minds, seeing beyond
their time and circumstances�it is irrelevant. No one seriously advances
arguments such as, "the Founders didn�t foresee the high speeds capable
by automobiles, so we must control access to them," or "refrigeration is
a powerful tool that the Founders couldn�t have predicted would be so
important, therefore its use must be highly regulated, with mandatory
licenses, training, and permission to refrigerate granted by the state."
Others who would trample the Constitution try to appeal to our
"self-interest" with their arguments. They point to the violence in our
society, and attribute much of it to the presence of firearms. Many also
like to emphasize the power of guns, saying that they are "designed to
kill." My response to the latter is a simple, "No shit!" Again, these
arguments fail to consider all the data, or miss the point entirely.
Some who make these arguments don�t know�or conveniently overlook�the
history of settling the West. There were some violent gunfights, which
were popular as movie fodder in years past, but largely Western towns
were peaceful places because most citizens were armed, and bad guys knew
it. As many satires on gun control point out, people aren�t calling for
"vehicle control," despite the fact that automobile accidents kill far
more individuals than firearm accidents.
Still, many people think that it's "reasonable" to favor some kinds of
gun control. Some buy into the "sporting use" arguments offered by
gun-grabbers: "Why does a law-abiding citizen need a weapon powerful
enough to shred Bambi into a casserole right there in the forest?" Other
arguments generally go something like this: "Handguns, shotguns, and
some rifles are okay for people to own, but no one needs a
fully-automatic rifle or a machine gun. What would anyone need that kind
of weapon for?" However, owning firearms was never about hunting�it�s
about "the security of a free state." How secure�and free�can we be when
all we�re "allowed" to possess are .22-caliber rifles and 11-round
magazines, against the .50-caliber automatic rifles and worse of
government forces?
"To Disarm the People is the Best and Most Effective Way to Enslave
Them"
In recent years, and with increasing fervor in the wake of the attempted
assassination of President Reagan, gun-grabbers have been calling
for�and getting�increases in so-called gun control, not just nationally
with the Brady Bill, but at state and local levels as well. "Handgun
violence" has become their slogan�as though handguns had started
sprouting little feet, running amok on their own and killing people left
and right. They�ve seemingly convinced the media that it�s on the rise.
Neither they nor the media apparently care to be bothered with research,
such as the Lott and Mustard study. For every instance of a child
finding and accidentally discharging a weapon that gets reported, there
are many more instances of a would-be crime victim successfully
defending him- or herself against a crime with a firearm. Where are
these stories in the newspapers? They tend not to be reported, probably
because they contradict the image the media wants to project.
By not reporting such cases, the media does the general public a double
disservice. First, as already stated, it skews the image of gun use that
most people have, giving the gun-grabbers easy targets for their weak
rhetoric. More importantly, it hides the truth of the effectiveness of
firearm ownership as a means of self-defense. How else would a 96-pound
grandmother be able to fend off a 220-pound bad guy determined to rob
her? There�s no other equalizer of force as potent as the responsible
use of firearms. The right to self-defense is an important, fundamental
right all human beings possess. No one has the right to restrict another
person�s choice in this area, yet that�s exactly what gun control laws
do. Who seriously thinks that a criminal is going to obey the laws in
obtaining a gun? That�s why most people who understand how gun control
laws work refer to them as "victim disarmament laws". A look at the rate
of violent crimes in areas which have passed concealed carry weapons
laws, comparing rates before and after their enactment, consistently
shows a decrease. Criminals want easy targets, and gun control laws
provide them with plenty of them.
Still, many politicians continue to push for more gun control. Why? It�s
possible that some can�t see their way past the arguments of the
gun-control lobbyists, not bothering to try to sort out the claims and
get to the truth. Increasingly, however, I�m convinced that many don�t
even try to get at the truth surrounding this issue, because they know
it would interfere with their goal, which is to try to control
Americans. What better way to push us into submission than by removing
the tools that give us the ability to resist? George Mason knew this;
that�s why he made the statement that heads this section. Hitler knew
it, which is why he made it illegal for anyone outside his military to
possess firearms. Jackboot Janet Reno is on record as stating that this
administration�s goal is an outright ban on private firearm ownership.
Clinton has also demonstrated his lack of respect for the Constitution
he swore to uphold and defend: "We can't be so fixated on our desire to
preserve the rights of ordinary Americans" (USA Today, March 11, 1993).
Under the guise of escalating violence, and the desire to protect
law-abiding citizens, the gun-control crowd is slowly but surely getting
its way.
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed
Where are the "gun nuts"�as we�ve been branded�while all this has
happened? To be sure, there have been protests and complaints from
citizens who are pro-gun or pro-Constitution. In all honesty, much of
the action from this side seems to be ineffectual thus far. Many choose
to voice their dissatisfaction with letters to elected representatives,
joining pro-gun organizations in hopes their membership dues will buy
some clout for their cause, or to complain amongst themselves. What good
will it do to write to the very people who are passing gun control and
confiscation measures every session? Does anyone honestly think such a
person will suddenly be swayed by the facts?
For years, the National Rifle Association (NRA), the largest "pro-gun"
organization in this country, has been advertising itself as the best
champion of the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA). However, it has
written some of the very bills that limit our freedom! Its justification
for doing so is that its proposals are less damaging than what
anti-gunners want. But any infringement on our rights in this area is
damaging. The NRA�s tactics are as gun-grabbing as Sarah Brady�s, only
she has the decency to clearly state her position. In addition, the NRA
has a record of ignoring the most pro-gun candidates in elections,
choosing instead to support a candidate who seems to have a better
chance of being elected, even if that candidate is worse on the gun
issue. This does not inspire confidence that the NRA is serious about
defending the second amendment. (Fortunately, there are alternatives to
the NRA. Gun Owners of America (GOA)�http://www.gunowners.org�is a
non-profit lobbying organization devoted to RKBA issues. Jews for the
Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JPFO)�http://www.jpfo.org�is a
non-profit educational organization. Both are staunchly pro-gun.)
Every bit of legislation that has been passed that says you can�t have a
certain firearm, magazine, or kind of ammunition is unconstitutional.
Every law that requires you to be processed, checked, fingerprinted,
tested, or "educated" before buying any firearm is unconstitutional.
Anyone who tries to tell you that they support the second amendment and
advocates any of these actions is either uneducated, trying to put
something over on you, or both. It�s as simple as that.
Those of us who cherish freedom and the fundamental human right of
self-defense need to fully understand the preceding paragraph and to
realize just how successful the gun grabbers have been. Once that
happens, I predict we will begin to take meaningful action to gain back
recognition of our rights. That will be the spark that sets off the
powder keg, as the gun-grabbers are accustomed to little or ineffectual
resistance, and will be reluctant to back away from their goal. Much as
I would dislike to see violence erupt, unless something gives in this
area that possibility is increasingly likely. Buoyed by their success
thus far, the gun-grabbers will continue to press for their goal of
confiscation of all privately-owned firearms. Backed into a corner by
such actions, at some point defenders of RKBA and the Constitution will
have no choice but to fight back. Such a conflict could well lead to the
open abandonment of the Constitution.
Reference
Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns, by John R.
Lott Jr and David B. Mustard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni Maravillosa is a psychology professor, a writer, and the web
mistress for the Liberty Round Table.
-30-
from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 3, No 10, March 8, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by
Laissez Faire City Netcasting Group, Inc.
Copyright 1998 - Trademark Registered with LFC Public Registrar
All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer
The Laissez Faire City Times is a private newspaper. Although it is
published by a corporation domiciled within the sovereign domain of
Laissez Faire City, it is not an "official organ" of the city or its
founding trust. Just as the New York Times is unaffiliated with the city
of New York, the City Times is only one of what may be several news
publications located in, or domiciled at, Laissez Faire City proper. For
information about LFC, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
