Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun Control or Homeland Security: You Can't Have Both
ChronWatch ^ | Friday, February 13, 2004 | Howard Nemerov

Posted on 02/16/2004 4:14:47 AM PST by TERMINATTOR

They are working behind the scenes to make sure you are defenseless, so that when they attack, they will be assured of success. Driven by hate, they seek to render you harmless to them, so that they may inflict maximum harm to you.

Sounds like typical Islamic terrorists, doesn’t it. But I am not talking about them; they are small potatoes compared to what is being proposed by some Democratic senators, led by Ted (Chappaquiddick) Kennedy and Frank (No Guns for You) Lautenberg. The terrorists are honest. They hate you and aren’t afraid to show it. They despise our way of life and live only to see it destroyed. The aforementioned U.S. senators claim to care about your security and well-being. They mouth feel-good slogans to disarm you mentally and emotionally, so that they can disarm you in fact.

In any case, both groups work for the same end.

The Bias Against Freedom

In his latest book, ''The Bias Against Guns,'' John Lott makes an excellent case that big media is mounting a deliberate campaign to mislead and reeducate the public regarding the value of gun ownership. The media does this by reporting only criminal use of firearms, while remaining silent on defensive uses. This Hitler-like mission to demean and marginalize millions of American citizens is ideologically driven for one goal: complete civilian disarmament.

Mr. Lott also included new information pertaining to post 9/11 issues, including numerous references to incidents where civilians with concealed firearms stopped terrorist attacks in Israel. In Chapter 6, he discusses the relationship between Concealed Carry and the reduction of mass murder. Multiple murders are more similar to terrorist attacks than any other form of civil violence in the U.S. at this time.

The book concludes that there is a huge reduction in multiple murder crimes in states with Concealed Carry laws. Even though over 35 states now have CCW laws, the vast majority of these crimes occur in the remaining non-issue states. CCW creates a protection effect that benefits even those who do not carry, and thus saves lives.

Senators Lautenberg and Kennedy are proposing S. 969, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act of 2003. This bill would effectively suspend your ability to purchase any gun if the ''Homeland Security Advisory System is elevated, high, or severe.'' This ban would remain in effect until ''the threat condition has been at the lowest level for 180 consecutive days.'' They do this because they believe this would limit domestic terrorists’ access to firearms.

So let’s suspend reality for a minute and not ask the obvious question: ''Why would terrorists want to shop for legally available guns here, the most powerful being a semiautomatic, when they can purchase all the machine guns, missiles, and plastic explosives they want in the Middle East arms bazaars?''

The core issue here is that if the government can come up with some excuse to ban firearms sales, it has then created a new de facto standard that civilian firearms are illegal. This makes it far easier to justify a complete ban and confiscation in the future.

Where were the military assets of this country deployed in the unsettled time after 9/11? Around and inside government infrastructure: buildings, bridges, refineries, etc. Were they patrolling your neighborhood? Do you think that your home is a priority to a government in survival mode during a threat to its infrastructure? That leaves you to protect your home and family. Whoops! You’ve been disarmed for your own safety. Well, we’ll write up a special statistic to commemorate your sacrifice for the good of the state during the emergency.

How do real Americans––the ones that are ignored by Washington insiders lusting after power––deal with the threat to their home, land, and security?

Jackson Arms After 9/11

I talked with Brian Normandy, manager at Jackson Arms Shooting Range in South San Francisco. The days after 9/11 were ''crazy.'' They shut down that day out of respect for those who had died, although they still answered calls to notify the public of the closure. People started calling first thing on 9/12, and the phones ''rang off hook before opening.'' The whole afternoon was spent working with customers wanting firearms. The first two months after 9/11 saw a 300% spike in sales of guns and ammunition, with the first six months remaining way above average.

Training class attendance also tripled, with people wanting to know how to use their new self-defense tools. Overall numbers for shooting practice and classes has risen and remained higher ever since. Students consist of ''tons of women, and all colors, ages, and walks of life.'' This reflects what I saw at a recent gun show. I am amazed at how gun rights is the most democratizing force I have ever experienced.

This paints a picture of reasonable people responding to a threat that had already occurred elsewhere on American soil, who took steps to learn how to be responsible for their choice of self-defense.

Martial Arts and Guns Do Mix

Bill Grossman owns a Kenpo Karate school in South San Francisco that carries his name. He has been teaching since 1978.

Before 9/11, most students were interested in tournaments and basic self-defense skills, with only 30% being adults. Since 9/11, classes are 50% adults, and special courses involving anti-terror skills are popular. People want to know how to act in the event of a terrorist attack. He teaches people what to do in various environments such as airplanes, or office buildings. He also teaches skills for avoiding kidnapping and how to defend against multiple attackers.

Included in the training is how to defend against a gun, how to take it away from one attacker and how to use it against others in a multiple attack. He takes students to Jackson Arms to learn basic shooting skills, so that they have all the necessary self-defense tools.

Bill and Brian paint a picture of the average American that is in complete contrast to the paranoid Washington attitude that Americans are too lazy and stupid to defend themselves, and that they are a danger to society when armed. Real people take homeland security seriously and are preparing themselves for possible future terrorist attacks.

While talking to both of them, another issue became clear: in the event of a terrorist attack, there will not be enough police on the street to cope. Bill and I discussed a tactical scenario that highlighted how easy it would be to take over San Francisco with a small group of terrorists.

This highlights another reason for Concealed Carry by law-abiding citizens. Terrorists know who the police are. Most cops wear uniforms, making them easy targets. Terrorists do not know which private citizens are carrying, which is the practical benefit of Concealed Carry. As shown in ''The Bias Against Guns,'' this hidden corps of citizens armed and trained in self-defense can and will come to the aid of fellow citizens to minimize or avert disaster.

We must preserve our right to Keep and Bear Arms. It is the only way to preserve our way of life. In the final analysis, it is the only way to protect your home, your loved ones, your security, and your liberty.

To sum up his beliefs, I asked Bill: ''If you were the president, making a State of the Union speech, how would you sum up your thoughts on fighting terrorism?''

Bill responded: ''My fellow American citizens. We will not fear the terrorists. We will unite together, and the terrorists will fear us.''

Could it be said better than that? Could it be said if we were disarmed?

Action Item for Those Who Are Interested

Call and write your congressional representatives. Tell them to vote NO on S. 1431/H.R. 2038, the ''Homeland Security Gun Safety Act of 2003.''

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: California; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; chappaquiddick; demean; disarm; hogsarehungry; homelandinsecurity; kennedy; lautenberg; marginalize; rkba; terrorists; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last
When terrorists attack again the police, NG, etc., will be busy protecting your worthless government officials, so clean your guns and bloat. You're on your own, except for whatever local Militia you form.
1 posted on 02/16/2004 4:14:48 AM PST by TERMINATTOR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Brian Normandy, manager at Jackson Arms Shooting Range in South San Francisco

Californians aren't all docile members of the kollectiv.

2 posted on 02/16/2004 4:18:24 AM PST by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TERMINATTOR; *bang_list
Posted to *bang_list
3 posted on 02/16/2004 5:09:30 AM PST by Copernicus (A Constitutional Republic revolves around Sovereign Citizens, not citizens around government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
4 posted on 02/16/2004 5:18:40 AM PST by FreedomPoster (This space intentionally blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
5 posted on 02/16/2004 5:58:14 AM PST by voicereason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5
''Homeland Security Gun Safety Act of 2003.''

6 posted on 02/16/2004 6:04:40 AM PST by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
7 posted on 02/16/2004 6:29:54 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (NRA Life Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

S. 969, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act of 2003... suspend your ability to purchase any gun if the ''Homeland Security Advisory System is elevated, high, or severe.'' This ban would remain in effect until ''the threat condition has been at the lowest level for 180 consecutive days.''

We have been in this threat condition continuously since 9/11. Given the present state of affairs we will probably be in one of these conditions for the next ten years (then add 6 consecutive months, and start all over again if the condition again elevates).

By then, every firearms dealer in the country will be long out of businessand the legitimiate firearms industry bankrupt. But, the black market in smuggled and stolen firearms will be in full swing with the government relentlessly pursuing "illegal" guns and the country in an uproar about this dangerous and intractable "problem". The only solution then will be to "turn 'em all in, Mr. and Mrs. America". The War On Guns will become similar to the War On Drugs.

What a surprise!

If nothing else besides "evil", these people are relentless in their devious, anti-American agenda.

8 posted on 02/16/2004 8:51:29 AM PST by Gritty ("When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."-George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

An aquaintence who claims he is a lifetime member of the NRA got into an AWB renewl debate at lunch the other day.

He claims that overall he supports the renewel and that the majority of Americans will also, that is why bush will sign it.

I replied that IMO, Bush will destroy his base vote should the bill make it out of congress and he signs it.

This friend is insistant that the AWB is good as "I grew up in East LA and have seen the destruction and carnage that assualt weapons can cause"....So he thinks its a good idea and no matter which argument of Incrementalism I used.

His argument on the 10 round clip in a pistol was "if you can't drop the threat with 10 rounds, you are'nt gonna do it with 17".

9 posted on 02/16/2004 8:57:14 AM PST by Rebelbase (The gravy train makes unscheduled stops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vic3O3; cavtrooper21

Semper Fi
10 posted on 02/16/2004 9:24:28 AM PST by dd5339 (Happiness is a full VM-II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase
His argument on the 10 round clip in a pistol was "if you can't drop the threat with 10 rounds, you are'nt gonna do it with 17".

True. By similar logic, if you can get there in a car that gets 35 MPG, then you don't need an SUV that gets 25 MPG.

I'm not sure what effect the AWB will have on the upcoming election, but IMO, the AWB is a stupid law.

11 posted on 02/16/2004 9:31:08 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dd5339; cavtrooper21
12 posted on 02/16/2004 9:46:41 AM PST by Vic3O3 (Jeremiah 31:16-17 (KJV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The Second Amendment - Commentaries
13 posted on 02/16/2004 10:24:21 AM PST by PsyOp (Do not take the first step without considering the last. - Clauswitz, On War, 1832.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase
Ask him if he'd like his right to 'free speech' limited to 10 words or less.
14 posted on 02/16/2004 10:31:17 AM PST by asformeandformyhouse (Despite the high cost of living, it remains popular.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Ten rounds is but a starting point. Next they'll want six because all semi-autos will be classed to be aggressive for their rate of fire, and only a law abiding citizen needs a revolver, anyway. THEN, they'll say to protect your home all you need is TWO shots from a 12 guage shotgun. As the saying goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see and none so deaf as those who will not hear. Your friend falls into both of these, I think.
15 posted on 02/16/2004 10:57:48 AM PST by ExSoldier (When the going gets tough, the tough go cyclic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
I was commenting about RebelBase's friend, and agree completely with your point about incrementalism. The AWB is a stupid law, in my opinion.
16 posted on 02/16/2004 11:22:54 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase

Gun grabbers are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but many liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.

However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.

Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms.

PostScript: In the vernacular of the founders well-regulated meant well drilled and organized.

17 posted on 02/16/2004 8:00:58 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

Stay Safe !

18 posted on 02/16/2004 8:02:12 PM PST by Squantos (Salmon...the other pink meat !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

I found this Q&A excerpt on our local sheriff's dept. website while helping our daughter with a school report. Can't help thinking what the answer would be in a more liberal part of the country.

I have a pistol which I keep only at home. Is it necessary for me to purchase a pistol license?

ANSWER: Certainly not. You may keep the pistol in your home and on your private property without a pistol license.

19 posted on 02/16/2004 8:12:31 PM PST by Tuscaloosa Goldfinch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

"Come and take it then."

20 posted on 02/16/2004 11:08:18 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson