There's No Such Thing As Sensible Gun Laws

This caught my eye this morning: Paul Helmke’s 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 that’s 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 don’t care if it’s a baseball bat! – he/she supports self-defense and the use of up to lethal force. Or, don’t they realize what they’re saying and doing? Most anti-gun nuts do in fact own weapons. Right, Rosie? N’cest pa, Dianne?

The second amendment isn’t about guns, it’s about personal sovereignty and the use of force to back it up.

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 didn’t vote republican this time around.

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 don’t own a gun, and non-citizens don’t own a gun, and then, repeal all gun laws. Now, that’s sensible.

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 it’s not attacking violence; it is attacking individual sovereign authority which is backed by lawful force.

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.

It’s a scam, a trap. Because of the sovereignty of the People and the People’s 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.”

I’ve said a thousand times that police have no mandate to protect individuals. Most officers will nod and agree with this if asked. I’m surprised that some younger officers are not even aware of it. Hell, even some legislators aren’t aware of it, but it’s 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 it’s hard to accept, but every head of household must come to understand that police don’t 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 let’s 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. It’s 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 can’t 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.

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.

wku, you are absolutely right in commenting that there as some sort of anti-gun zealots here who are trying to "-- hammer out some sort of (ill)logical anti-gun argument. --"

They even get frantic enough to try reversing the argument, claiming that you haven't disputed their irrational arguments, thus you're disputing 'motives', -- when of course dealing with irrational arguments necessitates dealing with the irrational motives behind making them.

Bizarrely enough you're even being accused of supporting the brady bunch, That you're their stooge.. -- By claiming that the second amendment protects our individual right to own any gun we please, somehow ~you~ are trying undermine our rights at the state level where our gun rights are supposedly being 'protected'.

-- The fact that several States & localities in the Union are actively banning guns, - is being completely ignored by the real stooges here at FR.

tpaine said: "The fact that several States & localities in the Union are actively banning guns, - is being completely ignored by the real stooges here at FR."

Also the federal Ninth Circuit Court has ruled that individuals have no standing to challenge gun laws because the Miller decision established that only militias are protected; an outright lie. The anti-gunners can't admit to the lie, because the tyranny of such a circuit court would be plain for all to see. Even the anti-gunners would have to admit that the runaway justices deserve to be tried for treason and hanged.

From an individual's point of view, that applies everything including rocks and pointed sticks.

Not everything that could be considered a weapon would qualify. I can imagine situations where pointed sticks would be effective for individual or collective defense. Not that other weapons wouldn't be better, but pointed sticks could nonetheless be useful if nothing better was available.

I cannot imagine any individual- or collective-defense situation in which a one-ounce letter bomb would be useful. Nor a tranquilizer dart laced with HIV. Both of those would certainly qualify as weapons, but I can see no practical was in which they could be used as arms for the purpose of individual or collective defense.

"They even get frantic enough to try reversing the argument,"

That, FRiend, is page one of the liberal playbook in a nutshell. Do or say something stupid, illegal, unethincal or just plain wrong, then scream that the our side is the one doing it.

The next two years are going to set the pace for the next two decades in this nation, if we are to even survive that long, that is. We can either unite behind the principles that our nation was founded upon, or prepare for an eventual worst-case, nightmare scenario. One side of the ideological aisle is just plain evil, and if half of "our" side is hell-bent on surrendering to them, well, my tagline says it all.

In the end, those who are so quick to shackle our rights to the whims of our enemies can do as they please. They'd just better not be around when those they sold their souls to come to my house to take my guns...it won't be pleasant for them.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

"Dang...there's that pesky fly again..."

Wow. Nothing like a point-by-point rebuttal to my post. Makes me glad I took the time.

Now that I know who the lightweights are on this topic I can avoid them.

"Either way, I have wasted more than enough time on you. Good night, and good riddance."

What part of this do you not understand? Go away, fly.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

They admire Rice for being against gun control. It's not true.

She's for Abbas and his terrorists being in control of guns. She votes for Hezbollah being in control of guns. And her work will result in Iran being in control of a really really huge weapon.

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.