Skip to comments.There's No Such Thing As Sensible Gun Laws
Posted on 12/04/2006 2:04:25 PM PST by neverdem
News By Us, not news bias
This caught my eye this morning: Paul Helmkes anti-liberty rant Guns and Governing, on The Huffington Post, December 1, 2006. Helmke is head of The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. Here is my response, December 1, 2006.
First of all, very first of all, when it comes to guns, there is no governing to be, with the exception of protection of the Bill of Rights. Since the right to bear arms is absolute, there is no governing over it. there can be only protection; you protect the rights of the people on that and thats your oath. Simple. Anything else is an attack.
Refusal to understand this not only reflects a poor understanding of the law and practical values in America, but reveals a hidden agenda to overthrow us all. All of us, not just those who support rights, but all of us. That would include Mr. Helmke, himself, unless he wishes to own a gun secretly.
In fact, if any anti-gun activist owns positively any sort of weapon in the home for self-defense I dont care if its a baseball bat! he/she supports self-defense and the use of up to lethal force. Or, dont they realize what theyre saying and doing? Most anti-gun nuts do in fact own weapons. Right, Rosie? Ncest pa, Dianne?
The second amendment isnt about guns, its about personal sovereignty and the use of force to back it up.
Anti-gun activists, therefore, are to be discredited utterly.
In three itemized issues, Helmke lays out mention of straw purchases, political clout of the gun rights lobbies versus election wins, and he mentions gun violence.
The first two arguments are themselves straw arguments, since straw purchases are way exaggerated as many, many writers have pointed out in the past in detail, and since the election wins and losses are not gun rights based, but far, far more based on republican disappointments, border control issues and size-of-government issues. Every voter knows it. It is silly to write that republicans lost because they listen to the NRA when voters (readers) know darned good and well their own minds and why they didnt vote republican this time around.
The third argument got my attention: Gun Violence.
Again, there is the call for sensible gun laws, but in fact there is no such thing as a sensible gun law. Could there be such a thing as sensible censorship? The only sensible gun law exists purely as a civil right, and it is absolute. If you want sensible gun laws, try no one under eighteen owns a gun, felons dont own a gun, and non-citizens dont own a gun, and then, repeal all gun laws. Now, thats sensible.
Here is my analysis as Mr. Helmkes piece summons of me.
The Second Amendment was made absolute and impervious to due process for a reason. The Founding Fathers knew very well what they did not want any more of no more over-reach, no more abuses of powers, no more warrants without local supervision (jury) and more and just as certainly as the fact that they ratified it all, they knew that it all had to be backed by force forever. That force is in the hands of the People, individuals like you and me, and it is this sovereign authority that cannot be infringed. It is being infringed various different ways. It is your authority which is being infringed. Remember that gun control is attacking not guns, and its not attacking violence; it is attacking individual sovereign authority which is backed by lawful force.
In many ways, Americans are being bluffed out of their sovereignty.
Attacks on guns are attacks on personal sovereignty to undermine the power of the People to remain in control over the country: gun control is an attack to wrest that control from the people in an immense transfer of authority, convincing people or coercing people out of it. Remove the lawful force of the people, and the rest can simply be taken unopposed.
Many laws toward that goal come in the form of anti-crime measures, so that little by little, the people surrender Americans cooperate in handing over what they think will help fight crime. Americans will do a lot and put up with a lot if they believe it will help.
Its a scam, a trap. Because of the sovereignty of the People and the Peoples own lawful force to back it up, the idea of one-sided force in this country is a trap.
Helmke summarizes, More guns are likely to make a home, a state, or a country more dangerous, not more safe.
This is, of course, wholly untrue, and Ill say just where.
Well, America, if you want to help fight crime and violence, listen up.
Ive said a thousand times that police have no mandate to protect individuals. Most officers will nod and agree with this if asked. Im surprised that some younger officers are not even aware of it. Hell, even some legislators arent aware of it, but its true. This is important for everyone willing to help to fully understand. As always, I am speaking not to gun owners, but to non-gun owners and the impartial, people looking for both sides of the issue. Heads of household who really want to understand. I know its hard to accept, but every head of household must come to understand that police dont have to protect you.
Police join law enforcement to help, but in actuality, in the most critical moments of a crime emergency, you are on your own.
As benign as it might sound at first, governing guns and people who own them means restricting before-the-fact your right to act at the moment action is needed most when you are facing grave danger alone, and lets be realistic: only you have the right to make that call. I support the idea of investigation for reasonableness under the circumstances, but before-the-fact restrictions (gun control) are entirely unreasonable and unlawful. It grows crime by permitting it to succeed unopposed in case after case after case, hundreds of thousands of times every year.
Equally realistic is the fact that some Americans believe preparedness in self-defense to be an unwanted burden. Their over-reaction of being expected to grow up and protect loved ones manifests itself as name-calling gun owners as Cowboys and Vigilantes. Its merely a denial or a refusal to take responsibility for something that unavoidably belongs only to them.
For an example of this, please visit the YouTube Video Confession Of A Rat: An anti-gun newspaperman admits to his wife (and to himself) that he cant be counted on to protect her life.
Governance over guns and people who rise to meet their responsibility is a ruse to disarm individuals to pave the way to grow crime to the advantage of officials. In a very obvious way, the anti-gun crowd uses the crowd who refuse this burden to increase numbers of anti-gun voters. Minions. Minions by the millions.
As I say often very often personal disarmament is a trap for the American household and a payday for officials.
Who is the real thief in this issue?
Why is the Second Amendment absolute and made impervious to due process? Why can there be no such thing as so-called sensible gun laws?
Because the individual victim of crime is the first line of defense, and no matter what law you write, we always will be. Gun control takes away the power but leaves the ultimate accountability, the typical bureaucratic trap. This is anti-violence? This is American? Is it good for your household to be denied the power, but left with the responsibility anyway?
The individual is now and always will be the first line of defense. And when crime is an excuse to transfer liberty and authority out of the hands of the people, this then makes the citizen the first line of defense for the entire nation. Taking away that anywhere/anytime, instance-by-instance defense is in no way sensible.
Jefferson was staunchly opposed to a standing army, thus his preference for militias.
I agree, same for those that are convicted of "white collar" crimes such as insider trading, etc. Only those that are CONVICTED of a violent crime should be barred, that means that the canned restaining orders included as part of in divorce filings in many states should not bar a person from having a firearm. A majority of those divorces have no history of abuse but yet there is a restraining order put into place.
I also disagree with the "no one under eighteen owns a gun" comment. I owned a 30-.06 before I was 18, still have it, and I haven't used it for anything other than sighting in and hunting. I think the age should be determined by the parents, not the government. I know quite a few people under 18 that I would trust to own a firearm over those that I know over 18 that I wouldn't trust with a firearm (even if my life depended on it).
Why 21? Why not 18? What they are saying is that an 18 - 20 year old that is/was a member of the military and trained how to properly handle a firearm can not be trusted with a firearm when they are on leave, etc.
I assume you mean that with the NRA stopping the gun grabbers. This sentence is a bit confusing.
There are sensible gun laws.
Use a firearm in the commission a crime - +5 years.
Fire a firearm during the commission of a crime - +10 years.
Injure someone with a firearm during the commission of a crime: +20 years.
To that, add Florida style self defense laws and no requirement to retreat.
Finally, wounded or injured perps should have no recourse to civil courts.
Hey, everybody needs a LAW or an RPG. How else are going to crack open a liberal politician's armored limo?
Actually, you can differentiate. Folks like me believe that the average citizen should be able to equip himself with the same weapons any infantryman would carry. I don't know too many nuclear-armed infantrymen, at least until the powered armor of Starship Troopers becomes standard issue...
My response is, does the 1st amendment only limit the Federal government?
The only way these cases would be heard is if the Feds passed total prohobition.
There are 6 states that don't have a clause that would equate to the 2nd amendment. California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey & New York are the states that don't.
You would be much better in legal standing if you had a three round burst M-16 rifle. That would be considered a current "Militia weapon".
So when he spoke of "regulars," it was with a certain amount of distaste?
I just posted a comment about VT gun laws...it's amazing that they have such "liberal" (I use that term jokingly) gun laws, yet they are so socialistic in almost all other aspects.
The RPG is the better of the two. Plus we need claymores to defend our houses from home invaders.
Heck. You can make those. Ally ya need is a pie tin, some plastique, big bag o' ball bearings, a detonator, some wire, a battery, some wood, some string, some duct tape, and a clothes pin. Makes a good "craft" project for the kids. "Darlin', thats a wonderful directional mine you made, but "Front" goes on the side with the ball bearings."
I have read that Miller's attorney told the Supreme Court to use the prosecution's evidence.
Yes you are wrong. See post #111 about the states that don't have a clause/provision similar to the 2nd amendment. Also, if the 2nd only applied to the federal government then that would also apply to the 1st (which has been had many cases that claim otherwise) and the 13th would still allow the states to keep slavery legal.
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.