Gun Control - The Nonsense Just Goes On and On...

The political season is over for a while and the offices have been filled. Once again, I heard many people ask candidates if they supported the Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment in our Constitution. Once more I heard many answers; some were good, some were not so good, and many were very lame at best.

One candidate indicated that he supported the ownership of guns for hunters, and that was his whole answer. Well, hunting isn't what gun ownership is about. While many use guns to hunt, the right to keep and bear arms is specifically intended as protection from criminals, invading enemies, and oppressive government. Again, according to Mr. Lars Larson, any person who supports gun ownership "for hunting" is actually using this to make it sound like they are OK on the subject.

I also heard people say that they felt the Second Amendment was about the rights of the state to form a militia called the National Guard. Well the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1787 when the "militia" was defined as every able bodied man in America. The first "National Guard" was created 130 years later, in 1917. I, for one, don't see how the two have anything to do with each other. Then these people must ask themselves this: if the National Guard is a "state militia", then why are they federally funded - with bases on federal land and using federally owned weapons and vehicles?

One person said, "Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense." I wonder why we issue them to the military by the thousands then. The antigun crowd will say that we don't need handguns because they aren't used for hunting, and the military doesn't use them, but then turn right around and say individuals shouldn't have what they call "Assault Rifles" because they are "military weapons"! I guess they want it both ways.

Some of them try to make it sound like a firearm is the demon that causes all our problems. You will hear things like, "guns cause violence", and many statements to the effect that ordinary people turn into slaughtering butchers when a gun is present. Many insist that "the majority of people support gun control". Well none of the above have any basis in fact. I have yet to see people go crazy when guns are around, and neither has anyone else. When was the last time anyone wiped out a bunch of people at a gun show? If it were true, the post office would be a perfect place for it to happen. Perhaps it is all that third class mail. But when was the last time a gun went on a rampage in a post office?

Police Officers carry a sidearm for the protection of themselves and others. You should have a firearm for the same reason. That is what this right is all about. No one I know of has a police officer right with them all the time. I can tell you right now that when you need that officer, chances are he or she will not be able to get to you in time to help. In my many years in law enforcement, I can only think of one time when I was in front of the address at the time I got the call. It just isn't possible for police officers to be everywhere. That is why many people who can afford it, hire personal body guards who carry firearms. The police also have no legal requirement to protect individuals. If you don't believe it, just ask one of them.

I look back in time and remember the 1950's and 1960's. I've read some of our history from the 1930's and 1940's. During those years you could buy a gun almost anywhere in America. You could order them through the mail and have them shipped to your door. You could walk into Hardware stores, Second Hand stores, Gas Stations, and variety stores and buy firearms. The Montgomery Wards and Sears catalogs had firearms you could order. There was no waiting period, no background check, no fingerprints required, and no government forms to fill out - and guess what, we had a lower crime rate, less violence, and no school shootings for the media to plaster all over the TV screen and on the front page for weeks on end.

Don't take my word for it, read the Armed Citizen section of the National Rifle Association magazine each month if you have any concerns. The right to keep and bear arms is the only right that protects us and all the other rights. It's that simple, and we must never allow those rights to be taken away from us. We must get rid of all the stupid and unconstitutional restrictions. They do nothing to help the honest citizen and they do not stop the criminals.

It never ceases to amaze me how far we have come from the atmosphere of 2 centuries ago. I'd have thought that we'd have had a serious national interest in making certain that the knowledge about our liberty was widespread, so as to preserve the original culture for as long as possible. I guess that this is why civilizations eventually fall. However, people like Sheriff Cook are the reason why we'll be able to hang around for a bit longer.

BRAVO!

Ignorance regarding an individual's right to own a firearm in this country is rampant, thanks to a liberal media that continues to "herd the cattle" in the direction of the anti-gun corral.

Sure, the world would be a better place without firearms or weapons of any kind. It would also be a better place without disease and death, hurricanes and tidal waves, lawyers and politicians, etc. However, the reality of things is such that those things do exist, and we must deal with them daily. It's a nasty world out there, folks... WAKE UP!

...and as long as it is a nasty world I'll be keeping my firearms close-to-hand, thank you!

V.T. Eric Layton
***Tempus Fugits***
vtel57@hotpop.com

Inspirational reading.

This Saturday in Minnesota and Wisconsin over 1 million heavily armed individuals will enter the woods for the deer hunting season. The argument that "guns cause violence" will be set aside for a week while a million hunters seek venison for the freezer.

I guess it never occured to the liberals that if guns cause violence the deer season should look like World War III. To their dismay, other than a few stupid accidents no one (other than the deer) gets shot.

Inspirational reading.

It never ceases to amaze me how far we have come from the atmosphere of 2 centuries ago.

I would take that sentiment even further: how about 35 years ago, before the 1968 Firearms Control Act? That was a watershed in American thinking and social action, and not a good one.

I can remember as a teenager ordering a rifle and ammo through the mail and having it shipped direct via Railway Express. But, I didn't need to do that, except it was a particular military surplus rifle I desired. I could just as easily buy them (and did) at any number of places around, as the article states - in Sears, the local hardware stores, sporting goods stores, gas stations, just about anyplace. Nobody cared or even thought we were going to murder somebody. We even took them to school during hunting season and put them in the coat closet of our classroom so we could go hunting right after school was over.

Somebody tell me again how America has changed for the better since then?

Well the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1787 when the "militia" was defined as every able bodied man in America

Even now, the militia is defined in the U.S. Code as the "Organized militia", which is the National Guard, and the "Unorganized militia".

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311. Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes

(a)

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)

The classes of the militia are -

(1)

the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

I'm a bit too young to have purchased guns pre-GCA, but I DO remember seeing all kinds of handguns in the local (now bankrupt) department store circa 1967. I distinctly remember a German Luger.

On the other hand, one of my uncles regularly carried a rifle to school (for the shooting club there) in Queens, NY (part of NYC) in the 1950's, as did many of his classmates. No one got shot, and no one ever looked crosseyed at my uncle or his club mates. How the world has changed (for the worse).

I'm probably going to get a pre-GCA Sears catalog from Ebay, just to be able to show all of the anti-gun types that all of this was possible in the not-so-distant past.

Well the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1787 when the "militia" was defined as every able bodied man in America,

Actually, Sheriff Mike is wrong about this, but not by much. the Constitution was written in 1787. The first Fedgov (as we know it) started in 1789, after elections in 1788. The Bill of Rights was proposed and passed by the 1st Congress, and ratified by the states in 1791. In 1792, the Congress passed, and President Washington signed, the Militia Act. So, the good Sheriff was off a bit in his chronology - but that is all. He is dead on about everything else here. And, yes, those of us between 17 and 45 who aren't part of the National Guard ARE part of the unorganized militia.

Do you realize what this means?
If -
The 2nd amendment actually refers to the "militia" instead of "the people,
and the militia is defined as above,
then here is the list of people prohibited from keeping and bearing arms:
any non-citizen
any female not in the National Guard
any male under 17 or over 45.

Fortunately, the 2nd amendment protection of civil rights is NOT limited to "the militia" but applies to all "the people".
Since this right is God given, even non-citizens' rights should be protected in this regard.

Sure, the world would be a better place without firearms or weapons of any kind.

I'm not so sure about that. There's an old saying: "God created Man, and Samuel Colt made men equal." I wouldn't want to be a young, cute, 110 pound female walking in a not-so-nice part of any town or city, and be forced to face rape, robbery or murder at the hands of "unarmed" 250 pound males.

I do agree with your sentiment, that the world would be a better place IF it weren't violent. Which reminds me of an old Yiddish saying, the translation of which is: "IF your grandmother had balls, she'd be your grandfather." We all know, as you indicated, that the world is a nasty place. Thankfully, I live in Texas now, and have gotten my CHL (unlike 2 years ago, when I was in NJ and couldn't carry without risking serious jail time).

Last time I checked (about a year ago),there were about 700,000 cops in the US. In any given 8 hour shift, around 240,000 of them are on official duty. There are around 280 MILLION of the rest of us. That means about ONE cop for around every 1,200 of us. The math makes it a no-brainer to say that we're really on our own when it comes to personal security.

And the Supremes have ruled that the while the police have a duty to maintain law and order and preserve PUBLIC safety, they have no special obligation to any SPECIFIC citizen. On that basis, some cops -- like those who died on 9-11 and at other times actually trying to save individuals -- really ARE heroes!

Try as they might, the cops cannot be everywhere.

They are after-the-fact agents, usually arriving in time to string some yellow tape, chalk your outline on the pavement and help the ME's boys close the doors on the meat wagon.

Like Tony Soprano, you need to "...get yourself a gun."

Tony has several.

And HE lives in that relatively gun-free sanctuary known as New Jersey.

Questions?

I agree 100% with your reasoning, though the numbers are even worse. Many of the police are in administrative positions, many are out on vacation or sick leave, many are in training, many testifying in court (or preparing to do so), many street cops busy writing up paperwork for traffic stops, etc., and many are concentrated in high crime areas (leaving those lucky enough to live in low crime areas on our own to a much greater extent. I remember reading that the 100,000 police that Clinton supposedly got for funding would actually produce less than 10,000 on the street at any one time.

In any case, the liberals generally won't agree with your conclusion to get a gun, even if they acknowledge that your facts are correct - because to do so would mean accepting responsibility for themselves and their families, and would mean that the all-powerful nanny state wasn't so all-powerful.

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.