Posted on 10/29/2002 6:50:08 AM PST by AUgrad
Snipers, Terror, and Gun Control
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
The recent sniper killings around the Washington DC area thankfully appear to have ended with the arrest of two individuals believed responsible. The sense of fear in the nation’s capitol was palpable throughout October, bringing back memories of the uneasy days following the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and New York City.
The wanton and unpredictable nature of the sniper shootings has reinforced an uncomfortable feeling that many Americans first experienced the morning of September 11th: namely, that the government cannot protect you. No matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group can still cause great harm.
For many this is a sobering thought, because we have come to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. We should remember, however, that we hardly would want to live in a rigid totalitarian society completely free of danger. This nation was founded on principles of self-reliance, but we’ve allowed ourselves to become far too dependent on government. Perhaps the only good that can come out of these senseless and tragic killings is an emerging understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.
As for the alleged sniper himself, we can expect two things from the media. First, we’ll hear a lot of details and nonsense about his rifle and how he obtained it. This scrutiny serves to instill a misguided sense of fear and awe toward a simple .223 rifle, making it seem like a highly dangerous instrument that should never be in the hands of the general public. Second, we’ll hear his defense attorneys feed the media a thousand excuses for his actions, ranging from his childhood to his failed marriage to his Army training. Most people see through this, however. The killer alone is responsible for his murderous actions.
Despite all the talk about rifles, the undeniable truth is that armed citizens are safer than disarmed citizens. We can’t know, of course, that armed citizens would have prevented any of the shootings or brought the sniper to justice more quickly. Yet it’s hard to imagine the sniper choosing Texas or another well-armed southern state to commit his crimes. The bottom line is that criminals seek defenseless, unarmed victims. Any criminal operating in the suburbs of Washington DC, southern Maryland, and northern Virginia – all bastions of anti-gun sentiment – can reasonably assume that his victims will not shoot back.
For most Americans, guns are not a political issue. People buy and own guns to protect their families, not to commit crimes. The truth is that even millions of Americans who support and vote for gun control own guns themselves, because deep down they share the basic human need to feel secure in their homes. Since September 11th, that sense of security has been shaken, resulting in a big increase in gun sales across the country. Most supporters of gun rights take no pleasure in this fact, nor do they trumpet it as a political victory over gun control forces. The time has come to stop politicizing gun ownership, and start promoting responsible use of firearms to make America a safer place. Guns are here to stay; the question is whether only criminals will have them.
October 29, 2002
Exactly.
A look back at the compromises and the agenda of the liberals and the NRA should show anyone with two brain cells to rub together, that the NRA no longer has the interests of gun owners at heart. They have gradually and consistently allowed and conspired with the liberals to erode our RKBA. Now the NRA is a political monster in which the leadership cares only about the interests of the leadership and keeping their well paid jobs intact.
Being politically active is becoming a waste of time and money. Just look around at how the liberal socialists, with the blessings of the courts, have destroyed the pretense of fair and honest elections in this country.
If you want to make a difference, arm yourself and let your "representatives" know that the only permit you need to defend yourself resides in the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. You know, the supreme law of the land. Dare them to try to take your RKBA away and make them understand how expensive it will be to try.
This whole issue is headed, and will come to a head in this country sometime, it might as well be now.
I believe you are correct. When gun confiscation becomes a reality many will adhere to the "from my cold dead hands" motto. I know some confiscations have occured in CA, but they've yet to try it in the south where I believe the attempt would be disasterously unsuccessful.
The NRA "bureaucracy's" main interest is preserving its cushy jobs. That means keeping gun owners scared so that they keep the ILA money flowing - and don't (worse) just quit memberships.
Ever see the NRA "out" an antigun politician? If it really wanted to win the gun war, NRA would make brutally clear to politicians that the price of antigun politics will be the "outing" of their messy divorce, their gay affair, their drug or alcohol problem; such "outings" have cost at least one liberal congresscritter - Ike Andrews here in North Carolina, who had 19 DUI or related charges in his home county - his career in the past 20 years.
The NRA is now irrelevant to gun control. What's deciding it instead is the realization that it's a political sure loser anywhere in Red Nation - and the realization that daily many Red Nation citizens learn that they are terminally ill and thus have nothing to lose.
Scandals of antigun politicians - with how-to guide to "outing!"
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.