Monday, August 10, 2009

A Word on Gun Control

Ranger Tom has graciously forwarded this essay he penned for posting on ILSA. Check his blog out at Ranger Tom's Rants.

Is Government's Crime Policy On Track?

Is gun control acceptable?

Almost everyone here in the US can tell you what was to be the first battle in our War of Independence. The Battle of Lexington Green in Massachusetts in April, 1775. Paul Revere, riding his horse throughout the night spreading the word that the “The British are coming, the British are coming!”

But what’s now conveniently left out of the US History textbooks today is why the British were coming.

And why was that?

Here’s what they’re leaving out: General Thomas Gage, military governor of Massachusetts, under direct orders of King George, decided to counter these moves by sending a force out of Boston to confiscate weapons stored in the village of Concord.

Confiscate the weapons…

And why did the British was the weapons confiscated? Well, to be able to properly control one’s subjects, first you must be able to take away their ability to resist. It’s the main reason our founding Fathers put the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights, or collectively, the First 10 Amendments to the Constitution. They, of all people knew that any Government could grow to distrust its people, and in time, subjugate them. The only way to really insure that this would never happen is to give the citizens the tools in which to defend themselves from tyranny.

Take away the guns, you have slaves.

Here in the US there’s one insurance policy on “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” And along with the First Amendment, the freedom of speech, is the right to keep and bear arms.

"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 use of the word “Militia” is that every man, from the age of 17 to
60 is the Militia. It doesn’t mean the National Guard.

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750 August 17, 1789

“ disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of 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 bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who s
tand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pen
nsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

But the powers that be are, right now, and have been for quite some time, slowly taking that one thing, the very key to our Republic and our voice. Because once you’ve taken the tools away to defend ourselves, to rise up against tyranny, all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights will topple one after the other like a house of cards.

Adolph Hitler disarmed the countries he invaded, even his own people. So did Stalin.

The one freedom I hold the dearest is the ability here in the States to d
efend my home and family from intruders. While each of the 50 State’s laws vary on the subject, for the most part (for now) if someone is breaking into your home at 3 AM, you can defend your home and family by whatever means is at your disposal. No laws saying you have to see if he’s armed or predetermine what his intentions are.

At 3 AM, or at any time for that matter, if someone is in my home without my permission, I’d have to conclude his reasons are nefarious and he’s not trying to sell me a subscription to the Weekly Standard. He’s getting “X” Ringed in short order.

Like I said before, the Government is slowly taking every last freedom away from us, but to be completely successful they first have to take away our guns.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8) “Th
e strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson)

And now where does that leave us?

But I hear the argument all the time. “But Tommy, the criminals are getting the guns! We have to stop that!”

Well, here the news for you nimrods who don’t get it. The criminals will always have guns. Do you really think the criminals are going to obey the laws? Look at Great Britain. Has their gun bans stopped the criminals? You can not own a firearm in Britain and yet the shootings have skyrocketed. And if you are one of the very lucky few to actually own a legal firearm in Britain, use it to defend yourself and see what happens to you. British police are now arming themselves for the first time. Hmm. Bobbies arming themselves?

Those gun laws are really working out for, aren’t they? Gun crimes soaring despite ban brought in following Dunblane.

Every place here in the States where the gun laws are the most stringent, the crime rates have gone through the roof. Where I lived in Arizona, alm
ost everyone had at least one firearm and carried one regularly and there was almost no violent crime.

And what about Kennesaw, Georgia? Gun town U.S.A., revisited - success of Kennesaw, GA's gun ownership requirement law in preventing crime

That’s a story the Left doesn’t like to talk about. But then on the other side of the coin, Washington DC has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet the homicide rates are though the roof.

The only thing taking away the people rights to own guns achieves is effectively enslaving them.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evol
ved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942

Kind of gives you the Warm & Fuzzies, doesn’t it?

Did you know that the Gun Control Act of 1968, the most restrictive legislation on gun ownership to date, is almost verbatim of Nazi Germany’s “Weapons Control Law” of 1938?

It’s far too large to reproduce here, but you can look it up if you don’t believe me.

“But Tommy! What’s wrong with banning machineguns and other military weapons?”

It’s not about the type of weapons. It’s just the slow chipping away of freedoms. They did it with this type of gun today, and they’ll use that rationale in every instance. It was the type, then the magazines, next it’ll be the type or how much ammunition you can buy, then how many guns you can own… Like a single drop of water on a granite boulder. Enough drops of seemingly harmless water over the years will completely erode the rock.

As for machineguns. Did you know it’s still legal to own a fully automatic firearm here in the States? They’re regulated to all hell and expensive, but you can legally own a machinegun here. I have several friends that own them. They’re called “Title III” or “Class III” weapons. You’ll pay as much as the cost of a brand new car for a legally transferable M-16, but you can still legally own one. And not once, ONCE mind you, has one of those legal automatic weapons ever been used in the commission of a crime.

My final words are this;

Gun ownership is not about duck hunting or target shooting.

It’s about your personal freedom.

Copyright 2009 Thomas J Wolfenden

6 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

Excellent essay RT. I can safely say that if SAns were given guns to protect themselves AND the right to shoot to kill inside their properties, that crime would drop dramatically in South Africa. Alas, we are "governed" by a Marxist terrorist organisation with the most liberal criminal-friendly constitution in the world, no death penalty etc so it will never change because that means the ruling party loses votes because most criminals are their followers. I mean, wtf, in SA, CRIMINALS have the right to vote!!!

Islandshark said...

This is excellent indeed.

Ranger Tom said...

Dobs: I remember when I was still in university and a police officer. The question was raised in class one day if the Death Penalty was truly a deterrent.

I raised my hand, (The guy I'll quote was a serial child rapist/murderer here in the states, in my home State of Pennsylvania) and told the professor that the death penalty sure as shit deterred the hell out of Elmo Smith, who won't be raping and murdering little girls anymore.

As far as criminals having the right to vote, along with gun control, I find that to be completely ludicrous! Here, you're a convicted felon, you have absolutely no rights, as far as the Bill of Rights goes, save for the First Amendment.

Para Bellum said...

@ RT...

Great post. Death penalty is NO deterrent to future reprobates, but it sure does deter the hell out of the convicted. I see the DP as more of an ultimate punishment. So that to earn it your deeds are so vile that you must be "cut off from the congregation of Israel" and must be for specific crimes. Murder, rape, GBH with intent, etc.

Secondly, it is biblical, so it gets my support, as is the right to self defense (of home and body) to the point of death of the miscreant, without blood guilt on you.

Unfortunately we do not have a system in South Africa that makes it "better to be judged by twelve, than to be carried by six". You are judged by 1 and 1 only, and that one usually has quite a liberal agenda to push. I would even be as bold to say that no white male in SA who defends himself or his family or property can be assured of a free trial in any court in this country anymore.

@ Dobes...

Absolutely!!! Institute a gun law that works... Ie. If you have been declared competent, get whatever weapon you like, and as many of them as you like in that class of weapon. Then institute the Castle Doctrine. Sit back and see a whole lot of reprobates change their wicked ways rapidly.

Unfortunately we have a tax called VAT so the government DIRECTLY benefits from crime.

Pigs may very well fly before we see laws in SA that are even close to being rational.

Anonymous said...

@ Para who said "I would even be as bold to say that no white male in SA who defends himself or his family or property can be assured of a free trial in any court in this country anymore." So true. Shocking and then there's the time you spend in lockup before you meet the magistrate for bail.


@ Doberman
"if SAns were given guns"...
This is the problem. Some outside force to take care by giving guns..
( Waiting for somebody else to take action - god forbid the SAn has to organise it on its own )
Any selfrespecting familyfather , mother , male etc.. has already taken care of this issue and is well armed and has the mental state to match. ( small minority )Those that are not armed by now are in all likelyhood pretty useless in defending themselves and their families. Where I agree however is that the right to self defence needs to be widened trastically and fast to match the grim reality on the ground. Will this happen ? I dont think so. The ANC would just not legislate anything that could upset the doings of its apparatchicks or its voterbase : criminals, gangsters ,fraudsters of all describtions and emerging criminals.