A NEW LOOK AT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

http://steven.newton1.home.att.net/ ^ | 2003 | Steven J. Newton

[Steve Newton]

Being an old police chief, I have had the opportunity to meet many politicians and almost invariably they will question me regarding my opinion on the right of citizens to carry concealed weapons. When I state my position that I think it’s a good idea, we usually wind up in a heated discussion about the evils of guns and all the harm they do. I remember a Governor telling me that he could not believe any police chief would be for carrying weapons when so many police officers die every year from being shot.

[Steve Newton]

A NEW LOOK AT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

Being an old police chief, I have had the opportunity to meet many politicians and almost invariably they will question me regarding my opinion on the right of citizens to carry concealed weapons. When I state my position that I think it’s a good idea, we usually wind up in a heated discussion about the evils of guns and all the harm they do. I remember a Governor telling me that he could not believe any police chief would be for carrying weapons when so many police officers die every year from being shot.

Well, what do you say to something like that? Most of the time you are not going to change any minds but I do wish they would at least get the facts straight. Number one, no one knows better than I do how many fine people we lose every year. Being the Vice President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, I see the thousands of names on our memorial wall and I grieve for every one. However, I believe that most officers killed with a firearm are killed by criminals and not law-abiding citizens. I also believe that the argument to outlaw firearms or deny the right to carry because of the danger to police officers is a false one. Lets look at some statistics:

In 1999, nationally, 42 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty. 23 slain officers were municipal, 13 were county, 5 were state and 1 federal officer. Firearms were used in 41 of the 42 deaths. 25 were handguns, 11 were rifles and 5 were shotguns. 5 officers were slain with their own service weapons. 20 officers were murdered in the South, 11 in the West, 6 in the Midwest and 5 in the Northeast.

12 officers were killed during arrest situations, 6 were serving arrest warrants, 4 were trying to prevent robberies or apprehend robbery suspects and 2 were investigating drug situations. Also 8 officers were slain while enforcing traffic laws, 7 while investigating suspicious persons, 7 while answering disturbance calls, 6 in ambush situations and 2 while handling prisoners.

Now here is food for thought. An additional 65 officers were ACCIDENTALLY KILLED in 1999 while performing their duties. 51 were killed in car, motorcycle or aircraft accidents. 9 officers were accidentally struck by vehicles, 3 were accidentally shot, 1 was killed in a fall and 1 was killed in an all terrain vehicle accident. In other words, in 1999, more law enforcement officers were killed by accident than by firearms. Not only that, but of the 55,026 line of duty assaults on officers, 81.5 percent were committed with personal weapons. (Hands, feet, fist, etc.) Statistics provided by the FBI, released March 15th, 2001.

Preliminary Statistics for 2001 are similar. 140 of the Nation’s law enforcement officers were killed feloniously including 71 in the terrorist attacks on September the 11th.

However, according to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, there have been 2.5 million protective uses of firearms every year in the United States. For many years, we have been telling the public to help us and to assist where they can. I have also seen a lot of talking heads on the news who try to convince people to, “be alert and remain aware of your surroundings,” when it comes to terrorism, but they can’t seem to really be able to tell people what to do. Well, in my opinion, an armed citizenry already knows what to do. They protect themselves when we cannot.

Now, I am not arguing for vigilantism, but I am arguing that people need to take responsibility for themselves. We seem to be side stepping the issue when we speak about enemies of the United States and we are afraid to let law-abiding citizens protect themselves. The founding fathers of this country provided for the right to bear arms and I can think of no other time in history where it is more important to do so, than right now. As a police officer, I would actually feel safer knowing we had trained civilians who could help me when I needed it.

The only problem is that no one wants to say it. I trust the American people with weapons and I trust that they have the sense to know when or even if, to use them. Again according to the NRA, 32 States have a right to carry law. On the average, crime rates in these states have lowered since the adoption of RTC. Out of all the protective uses of weapons in the U.S., only 1% of the weapon owners actually fired their weapon. With a little training in firearm safety, legal issues and shoot don’t shoot we can have thousands more people on the street that can help us fight terrorism. It seems to me that the only people, who do not trust the people, is the politician. Imagine that.

© Steve Newton 2003 stevenewton69@hotmail.com

[RAY]

Excellent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[federal]

bookmark

[ConservativeWarrior]

I've been carrying for a while, and often wondered how I should/could ever offer assistance to a law enforcement officer in bad situations.

I've always been of the mindset that when the spit hits the fan, I don't want to be one of the people holding a gun but not wearing a uniform.

Any thoughts from those in the law enforcement field?

[Melinda in TN]

Wonderful!! Law officers in my area like citizens that have carry permits. They call us the "good guys". My husband was stopped for speeding on I-75 a couple of years ago and his 9mm Ruger was on the seat, loaded and in plain site. When the officer came to the window my husband told him about the gun and asked if he needed to see his permit. He said "no, it's not the permit holders I worry about".

[Michael Goldsberry]

Kudos, pal. Kudos!

[Kadric]

To put it simple.
If you don't trust me, why should I trust you?

You should be read as politicians.

[Righter-than-Rush]

Which state? I tried that in CA and the PC cop was NOT amused. Misdemeanor.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

My statement

http://www.rustfreetrucks.com/gun/husbandview.htm

Anyone else

[sgtbono2002]

I feel when police officers need trained people to help in incidents where they may need ride alongs they should go straight to their VFW or American legion Posts. Evry man there has had some training with firearms , they have the wisdom of service and the willingness to help America. For God and Country.

[Melinda in TN]

LOL, Tennessee. We are very gun friendly here.

[SLB]

BTTT

[2nd amendment mama]

Excellent Article!!!!

[Larry Lucido]

"I trust the American people with weapons and I trust that they have the sense to know when or even if, to use them."

Well said, chief (from a couple of former Dallas PD officers).

[Eastbound]

Confirmation is nice, but in today's perilous times, and of necessity, any argument against owning and carrying firearms will fade along with the memories of more peaceful years.

[VoiceOfBruck]

I feel when police officers need trained people to help in incidents where they may need ride alongs they should go straight to their VFW or American legion Posts.

Sorry, but I had to chuckle - all they'd find in our local VFW is a bunch of really ornery drunks. I hope that's not true everywhere.

[Righter-than-Rush]

I understand Eastbound's point, but also yours. Even so, I am not sure the local tavern with drunks could do much better than VFW drunks. I guess I would have to go with the VFW (and keep them in FRONT of me).

[basil]

Bump

[joesnuffy]

What the 'feelings' are of a bunch of gun grabbing liberal anti freedom politicians or cops really doesn't amount to a good gob of spit...

The only thing that matters is that document....and the 2nd amendment....and those words
written by our founding fathers...set down...to keep politicians and police chiefs from deciding to put us back under the yoke of the serf and slave...With the state as master....and themselves as it's unholy ministers unaccountable to anyone and not even God Himself...

The Constitution is a document set down as a safeguard... to protect the people from the state and those whose lust for power overcomes the better angels of their conscience

.

......the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

[anarabismybrotherinlaw]

I mean no offense to American Indians, but, when the 2nd Amendment was being considered, the new settlers living near the American frontier had constant fear in their hearts that a bunch of savages would attack them. The right to keep and bear arms was vital to their survival. For example, a group of law-abiding people could band together as a local militia, etc. to defend themselves and their families against a much larger force. I have always felt that the 2nd Amendment applied in ad hoc situations, whether the foe was marauding Indians or outlaws, as well in the larger sense many feel that it implies. As the West became more settled and the East became downright tranquil, some ambitious politicians began appealing to weak-minded and short-sighted people to ban weapons from private hands. Although some fell for this so-called "liberal" sophistry, fortunately judicial activists have succeeded in thwarting the guarantees in the Constitution regarding private weapons only partially, and only in some locales. I say this is fortunate because we as a Nation are again faced with the prospect of wild men in our midst who may strike anytime, anywhere, without warning: They are not wild Indians; they are Militant Islamists. While most Muslims are peaceful, a certain percentage is quite militant. I expect that they will arm themselves and strike mercilessly, and that they will likely attack those jurisdictions that have limited 2nd Amendment rights. They may be insane, but they aren't stupid. I think that they will attack where they will meet the least degree of unexpected resistance. It brings me no joy to think of liberals and those led astray by them being slaughtered wholesale, but that is the likely prospect. For myself, as soon as I can, I intend to move to a State where Concealed Carry is allowed, and I advocate that all exercise that right. For example, if all or most of the school teachers had been packing heat, the recent massacre at that school in Russia would not have happened. Do we have to have a massacre of that magnitude here before we wake up? The police and military personnel can't be everywhere, and generally their uniforms and official vehicles announce their presence. On the other hand, if a band of terrorists was unsure whether any citizen, anyplace was armed or not, they will be dissuaded. And, if not dissuaded, soon they will be dead.

In summary, I never agreed with the sophistry of the gun-grabbers, but now we must take a stand. We either have to run them out of town or ourselves go somewhere they have no power, because I believe that we are about to be attacked by merciless militant Muslims. I do not suffer fools gladly, especially those gun-grabbers who would allow me and mine to be slaughtered on their altar of gun control: The great majority of the American people, including most Muslims will do what is right and just. We cannot allow a small minority of Militant Muslims to run amok here like they just did in Russia. We must ban gun control and encourage responsible gun ownership and education so that most of the good people will be armed and ready when the militants strike. If we do, we can easily outgun them and save ourselves. Otherwise, we may find ourselves destroyed and the survivors enslaved.