New Information For Connecticut School Shooting, Adam Lanza, Gun Violence

In an effort not to make a knee-jerk reaction to the recent Newtown, Connecticut school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, I’ve waited to gather as much of the information as I could before adding my two cents to the plethora of information stemming from the incident involving the reportedly mentally disturbed Adam Lanza, gun violence in America, and what we can do to prevent gun crimes similar to that which took place in Newtown, Connecticut.

I think most gun owners and non-gun owners alike will agree that something needs to be done about the seemingly recent rash of gun crimes, especially in schools and other areas typically associated with being safe places to be. The question is, “What?” To jump to one conclusion and focus on only one of the many issues involved in violent behavior, and especially school shootings, is seriously short-sighted.

It’s a no-brainer to say normal human beings want common sense laws and efforts aimed at keeping children safe. Reducing not just gun violence, but violence in general--especially aimed at defenseless children in our schools--is one of the most important tasks we face. We also should want to do whatever is possible to keep the teachers who work in our schools safe. The school shooting at Sandy Hook brings up a lot of questions, and those using their common sense should be able to agree that there isn’t only one thing that will provide a simple solution.

If we are serious about finding new solutions to this never-ending problem it’s time to change our old tired and failed methods of protection for our children and innocent teachers just trying to do their job. So where do we start? My suggestion is to rule out the things that are the least likely culprit for the cause of school shootings and focus our attention on that which will have the most swift reduction in these types of senseless crimes.

According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type. The FBI data shows that 323 murders were committed with rifles of any kind in 2011. In comparison, 496 murders were committed with hammers and clubs, and 1,694 murders were perpetrated with knives.

Knowing this, it’s interesting to note that only when a gun is the object used to perpetrate a crime that the person actually responsible for the blame is rarely the focus of the media or the blame. When a man slaughters his family with a knife, no one is clamoring for the ban of steak knives. When a violent gang uses machetes in a murderous spree against rival gang members, no one calls for the confiscation of machetes or hatchets. When chemicals in the home kill children, we don’t call for the closing the chemical factories.

Even though automobiles cause far more casualties on a yearly basis (more than 32,000 deaths) than almost anything else in America, no one is calling for a halt to the manufacturing of automobiles. When someone kills another by means of their 2000 lb. automotive projectile we typically believe in punishing the individual for his or her actions. However, the uninvolved drivers are not punished by having thier car taken away, yet isn’t it strange that when someone commits a crime with a firearm there is an outcry for all gun owners to give up their guns instead of holding the individual responsible for his own actions?

If our government is so concerned about preventing deaths perhaps the answer is to confiscate our vehicles. Is removing all the vehicles from the road too drastic? Then let’s just eliminate a segment of the automobile deaths by eliminating a few models of vehicles. In fact, if we wanted to eliminate 93 deaths today all we have to do is ban vehicles right now.

But we don’t. Why? Because it’s too convenient for us to have our vehicles even though thousands of people die every year in vehicles on the roads of America. Or, more aptly stated, we’re willing to sacrifice 32,000 lives every year simply because it would be inconvenient for the rest of us to give up these murder weapons.

Focusing on the gun instead of the criminal seems to suggest we might as well have a trial involving only the gun and let the perpetrator off the hook.Why is it that in these cases so many politicians are so quick to blame an inanimate object instead of the very person who used an object in a manner it was never intended for? Why do these same politicians try so hard to push their agenda on those who never abuse these same items? Is there an underlying reason being kept from the public?

In the days to come, we’ll be looking into the truth about why you’re being led to believe guns are the problem for school violence, and specifically how your attention is being diverted by the anti-gun lobby—and why.

The United States With No Second Amendment Rights

As has become obvious from my posts in the last few days about the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, gun violence in the U.S. and the impending gun control legislation, if you read between the lines there can be no mistake that the anti-gunners are coming for any type of gun they can get their hands on.

Unfortunately the anti-gun lobby has reached the tipping point where they feel they now have enough high-profile cases to stand on, especially after the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut involving young children. The most recent shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary has inflamed the anti-gun lobby beyond the point where they can contain themselves and they’re now licking their lips in the hopes of sliding through various gun laws even though the proposed “solutions” will have no effect on crime before the public can understand that these new legislative proposals will have no effect on mass shootings or gun crime.

While the tone of their language after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut started with the popularly palatable idea that all measures would be looked at to reduce senseless violence, it quickly turned to an acute focus on guns and gun restrictions alone.

It’s become painfully obvious listening to the ineffective proposals tossed about by the current administration and being reported in the media that their true objective is not the safety of our children but rather a long-held effort to reduce gun owners’ rights to a mere fraction of what was intended by the founders of the United States. If at no other time or in no other statement, we were undeniably tipped off to this underlying mission when Senator Diane Feinstein mentioned the new legislation that will be pushed in Congress was the result of gun legislation that had been worked on for over a year—long before the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy.

Another clear indication that the actual safety of our schools and children is not the goal, is that the new gun proposals being put forth by the Obama administration will have little to no effect on the type of gun crime that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut, the Aurora Colorado shooting, or the Columbine massacre. All of the proposals being pushed at this time are simply a whitewash to hide the ugly reality.

At the beginning of his first term President Obama said he wanted to, “Fundamentally transform America.” When he said those words he intentionally left the details vague knowing the populace would tend to go along with that thought, at least since the uninformed had no idea how heavy his true socialist agenda was at the time.

Now we’re starting to see that one solid example of one of President Obama’s ways he would like to “fundamentally transform” the United States, is to rid the United States of the guns in the hands of the law abiding citizens. (Remember, criminals are exempt because they will always have that which is illegal).

As part of his push toward this fundamental change, his administration created a massive gun-running scheme to get guns in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. What the anti-gun lobby doesn’t mention, and doesn’t want you to know, is that it was the Obama administration that ‘walked’ these guns across the border into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. When these guns were used in crimes the idea was to be able to track them back to the United States to try and prove a point—hoping to show a correlation between our guns ending up in the hands of the criminals, and being able to blame the U.S. for being responsible for other countries’ gun problems.

Even though the facts of this operation-gone-bad are coming out, the anti-gun lobby still tries to site “…[U.S. guns] have made their way across the border to Mexico.” What they didn’t count on were the ramifications of that operation. One of the guns the Obama administration gave the Mexicans was used to kill our own border patrol agent, Brian Terry. This exposed the Obama administration’s “Operation Fast and Furious” gun running scheme resulting in the Obama administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder being found in contempt of Congress after refusing to hand over required documents about the failed operation. The inquiries into this fiasco have also seen President Obama claim executive privilege in order to keep documents regarding this operation-gone-bad from ever becoming known to the American public.

It isn’t much of a stretch now to see that absolute gun control is one of this administration’s ways he’s trying to make the United States a “fundamentally different” country than what we have always been. Of course those with this intent will state otherwise, but what choice do they really have if they are going to succeed in their mission?

Using gun tragedies like Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut, Columbine, and the Aurora, Colorado movie theatre shootings as a way to play on Americans’ emotions during a time of weakness is nothing more than an unethical way for the anti-gun lobby and the politicians to dupe the public into believing what they are saying has at least a modicum of truth. Then they have the audacity to “warn” the American public that those in favor of the full and unfettered preservation of the Second Amendment will be trying to "trick" them into believing just the opposite of what the anti-gun lobby is saying.

What I’ve noticed after the recent tragedy at Sandy Hook is that those against the weakening of the Second Amendment remained silent in the beginning, waiting for the President to follow through on his promise to look at all possible reasons for the recent violence. It was only after the real issues were ignored and the onslaught of jabs were targeted at the guns and law-abiding gun owners that those in support of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution came forward to defend what they know to be so valuable for all citizens of the United States. The only other option the Second Amendment supporters have is unattractive—to stand idly by as the anti-gunners push there agenda through unopposed.

Gradualism is one of the most potent tools of the enemy. They have slowly been duping the masses about the true intent of our Second Amendment by gradually desensitizing them into more of the thinking of the world. There is no mistaking that the world government would love nothing more than ridding the U.S. of it’s Second Amendment rights. Just take a look at the sculpture that looms large at the U.N. Building. http://newyorkdailyphoto.com/nydppress/?p=542

The principles that once made this country great have become fodder for the anti-gun activists in the hope that the public is so uneducated that they will blindly go along.

The unfortunate picture of how the country will look without the full force of our Second Amendment is not pleasant. We’ve caught a glimpse of what we will become without the ability to defend ourselves during times of recent natural disasters such as Hurricane Sandy on the East Coast and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

In New York, anti-gun king Mayor Michael Bloomberg got a picture of his utopian world of no guns as looters and criminals ran wild in Brooklyn and other areas. The homeowners had no ability to meaningfully defend themselves during the chaos after Hurricane Sandy. Anyone trying to find water, or food better get home before dark or they may never make it home. Bloomberg wouldn’t even allow the National Guard to come into the city to protect he people—because, of course, the National Guard have guns!

In New Orleans the authorities unthinkably decided to confiscate guns from the law abiding citizens, leaving them victims to the merciless criminals roaming the streets and neighborhoods all day and all night.

Those against concealed carry at colleges love to point out the alarms or phones placed around the campus as reason not to have concealed carry. Ask the latest college campus rape victim if the attacker asked if she’d like him to get off of her for a minute so she could use the phone.

Even if the attackers are kind enough to let you call the police, the police do not prevent crime. The police show up after the crime to take notes and hopefully care enough to look for the bad guy, with no guarantee of finding or convicting the criminal. In some jurisdictions (Detroit and Oakland for example) it takes police as long as 24 to 30 minutes to respond to priority calls. There are cases where victims of crimes in progress never got a response from the police and were told an hour after the violator had fled that if the victim wanted to file a report she’d have to go to the police station to do so because the police were “too busy to send anyone.”

In Chicago, already ripe ground for criminals to create victims due to their practically no-gun laws, the police are no longer responding to robberies or car theft. As soon as the criminals figure this out what direction do you think the crime rate in these categories will go?

Are you willing to accept that type of protection? If you support the slow erosion of the Second Amendment that’s what you’ll end up with. This is why you’re not being told the high rate of violent crimes in the countries with the most strict gun control (multiples of the per capita crime rates in the United States). It would be hard for the anti-gun lobby to sell you their tall tales if you knew how violent our country will be should they succeed in disarming our law-abiding populace.

Even in the U.S. the reason for the high rates of violent crime in cities like Chicago, Washington D.C., etc, are because the most strict gun laws are already in effect. In these cities the criminals know they are the only ones bringing a gun to the party and the citizens going along with strict gun control have become their voluntary victims. As an opposite example, in cities such as Kennesaw, Georgia where gun ownership is mandatory, crime rates are negligible.

Remember, even if guns are outlawed, the outlaws will still have guns. If the police have guns they will be stolen by the criminals, or sold by corrupt cops to the criminals. The criminals will always have them, leaving the law-abiding citizens sitting ducks for those who are intent on doing harm.

You also need to get serious when someone suggests to you that all you need to do is spray the intruder in the eyes with oven spray, or to use some similar ludicrous method of self defense. That would be like hitting a Grizzly Bear with a pebble from a slingshot. All you’ll do is make him mad.

The “oven spray” information, like the anti-gun information, comes from the grossly uniformed or those who really aren’t concerned about your own safety. These people also have no idea about the mindset of a dedicated violent attacker. A dedicated attacker who has no regard for his own life will have much less regard for yours or anyone else’s. When someone is prepared to die for their cause there isn’t much you can do to prevent that person from acting and causing all sorts of collateral damage in his wake. All you can do is whatever it takes to defend yourself and your loved ones. Sometimes that means having, and knowing how to safely operate a firearm—not a can of oven spray.

I know it’s possible that the only way to change some people’s mind would be if God sent an armed intruder to your house in the middle of the night. You would perhaps realize at this point how much of a schmuck you have been for being duped by the anti-gun agenda as the criminal rapes your wife, abducts and molests your children—or worse. Unless you’re faster than a bullet from a criminal’s gun that is what you’ll be experiencing if you help the gun-grabbers dismantle the Second Amendment.

Thinking that “Just this one type of gun”, or “Just this one type of ammunition” should be banned is exactly what the anti-gun lobby wants you to think. It allows them to unravel the Second Amendment one thread at a time. Unfortunately it doesn’t end until there are no more “types.”

Make no mistake about it, those opposed to gun rights in the United States are coming for all the guns. If you don’t believe me, ask the citizens of the countries who had the rulers who convinced their citizens that gun control works—Stalin, Gaddafi, Castro, Mussolini, Hitler...

They know the only way to dismantle firearm ownership is in gradual increments, since trying to outright ban all guns would be political suicide. It’s starting this time with the exploitation of the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown Connecticut. Don’t be fooled. Anyone armed with sensible information can see the “solutions” being proposed are not about the children or saving lives, it’s about coming for all the guns the best way they know how. The ideas for saving the lives of more innocent children were quickly scrapped in order to take on a much easier sell—stripping the American citizens of their God-given right to self defense.

My hope is that our great nation wakes up to the depth of the subtlety of the anti-gun proponents before we’re swallowed by violence with no way to defend ourselves in a meaningful way. The politicians who are always able to have armed body guards can’t possibly be thinking clearly about unarmed citizens’ safety. You need to think for yourself. Those who have blindly gone along with the rest of the uninformed will soon find themselves in the position when (not if) they need someone to come to their rescue. At that point they will have no choice when asking who is to blame but to walk straight to the nearest mirror, look that person squarely in the eyes, point directly at the culprit, and say in no uncertain terms, “Me.”

For those who still refuse to even consider what I’ve written in the previous articles there is apparently no convincing you otherwise at this point. And for those same people, I acknowledge and respect your decision to be a victim instead of the victor should you ever encounter that masked man in the middle of the night, in an alley, in your home, or in your car.

There is still one thing I will ask of those who choose to be the victims. I request of the anti-gun individuals that you please don’t make the decision for others who choose to be able to fight and live. Please stay out of the conversations when you are uninformed. If you’ve never shot a firearm, if you dislike firearms only because of what you hear from the media or from others who regurgitate what they hear on the media, please stay out of the decision-making process. The greatest harm to this country comes from within—from the uninformed trying to make decisions that effect everyone else’s life.

Are Your Hunting Guns At Risk Of Being Confiscated?

I hear time and again by hunters that they aren’t afraid of the government banning hunting or taking away their gun rights. “Do you mean to tell me that the current gun ban and gun control legislation being proposed will end up with the government coming to get my hunting guns locked in my gun safe?”, they ask.

I understand that it’s a hard thing to fathom—the government putting an end to gun hunting rights. For those who use their guns only to hunt and always have, it seems like a paranoid stretch to think that their gun rights will ever be taken away. The anti-gun lobby likes to point this out by making a mockery of such comments by those warning the hunters.

No one knows the future of the drastic gun control measures being tossed about in the current climate after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. But, they say that history repeats itself, so let’s look at what history has shown in other countries with the same types of gun restrictions currently being proposed in the United States.

The individual actions and statements by politicians are never purely for their dressed-up purposes used to sell an idea to the public. After the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, the current administration started the attack on gun-owners rights subtly, with the President saying, “…any actions should begin inside the home, and inside our hearts.” This statement is hard to argue with since one of the biggest reasons for criminal action is the upbringing of the criminal. Without a question our homes and upbringing have the most to do with how we turn out—and how many criminals are churned out.

Those in the current administration said in the days after the Newtown Connecticut shooting that, “…all options for curtailing this type of violence will be looked into, including mental health issues, sensible gun restrictions, and any other ways to save lives.”

Within a week all talks by the government quickly turned to gun control alone, leaving all of the other “options” off the table. Their true intentions are now hard to ignore.

In my previous articles you’ve already seen the current restrictions to your Second Amendment rights that have been proposed. What we will look at here is how the current climate of gun control pertains specifically to hunting, and the possible erosion of hunting rights in the U.S.

Governments know it would be an overwhelming hurdle to outright ban guns from law-abiding citizens. And even though many politicians have indicated they are in favor of that exact measure based on previous legislation they have supported or signed into law, they are smart enough to keep their true intentions concealed due to overwhelming opposition should the truth come out.

The only real method available for politicians to curtail law-abiding gun ownership then, is to split all gun categories and target them one at a time. Usually the first one targeted is a type of gun or ammunition recently involved in a high profile crime—one that has the public clamoring to make a “quick” fix to the problem—one that will be easily supported.

Right now in the United States that God-send of a high-profile crime for the anti-gun lobby is the one that happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut with an AR style sporting rifle (also called an “assault weapon” by the anti-gun lobby), and a couple handguns with magazines larger than ten rounds.

The language used by the government and the government-friendly media, portrays these items to be as sinister as possible using the terms “assault weapons” (arbitrarily made up to confuse the uninformed they are somehow similar to military rifles) and “high capacity” magazines even though “high capacity” is also a subjective term and in this case means capable of holding 11 rounds or more. A great example of the truth compared to what you’re being sold by the media can be found here. http://thegunwire.com/blog/youtube-video-bigshooterist-assault-weapon-bans-explained/

In the case of the United States we have a thing called the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that the banning of the proposed items would arguably violate. This current attack is now starting the slow erosion of the right of all people to keep and bear arms—all arms—including hunting rifles. (We’ll get to that)

In any case, as soon as one category of guns, ammunition, or accessories is banned, the removal of arms continues in a systematic erosion of subsequent categories. Perhaps it goes next to semi-automatic arms, then rifles over a certain amount of power, then handguns over a certain caliber size, etc. This is the divide-and-conquer strategy where the hope of the anti-gun activists is that no one segment of the gun-owning public will be strong enough to defeat the general public (and even some gun owners) who are against or indifferent to that particular, currently-targeted category.

Typically the hunting guns are the last lot targeted because the general public tends to believe that hunting is a noble and good sport and pastime, deeply rooted in our country’s heritage. This sentiment is evident when even the staunchest anti-gunners I have talked with tend to end their statements against guns with, “…but I don’t have a problem with hunting rifles.”

Those who are hunters-only, in their complacency and belief they will never be targeted, often denounce the use of the AR style sporting rifles and magazines holding 11 rounds—currently the targeted categories. What they don’t realize is that when hunters are the last group of gun owners left to target, the removal of their arms will be one of the easiest to do because all of the other gun owners no longer care about the hunters who have spoken out against the other categories. In other words, there will be no on left to fight for the hunters if the hunters don’t fight for the others.

The irony to all of this in the United States is that the Second Amendment was not created for the protection of hunting, nor does it have anything to do with hunting. http://www.randyganther.com/component/content/article/94-original-meaning-of-the-second-amendment-to-the-us-constitution.html

This means that there will be no legal means of defending the hunting rifle, or hunting rights, leaving it easy to dismantle the final, yet previously thought untouchable class of gun owners—the hunters.

I don’t hunt. I don’t use 50 round, 100 round, or 30 round magazines. But I do believe, based on statistics and facts and not emotional rhetoric, that there is nothing about eliminating these objects that will reduce the crimes that are currently being blamed on them. You can see here why even 7-round magazines will have no deterrent effect on school or mass shootings. http://www.randyganther.com/component/content/article/90-why-proposed-new-gun-legislation-will-not-stop-mass-shootings.html

Gun owners need to stick together without falling into the well-executed trap of the anti-gun advocates. With every category of gun eliminated, you are one category closer to the government showing up at your doorstep, and asking for the key to your gun cabinet.

We wrap this series up in the next article as we take a look into the future of what our country will be like should law abiding citizens of the United States ever be stripped of their Second Amendment rights.

Original Meaning Of The Second Amendment To The U.S. Constitution

There continues to be arguments between the pro-gun groups and the anti-gun lobby about the intended purpose and meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The anti-gun lobby argues that the use of the word “militia”, as mentioned in the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States indicates the keeping of arms was meant only to provide for a standing army in times of an invasion by another county. During my college years, I too was indoctrinated into this line of thought.

What I wasn’t told then, and what the anti-gun politicians go out of there way to hide for fear of weakening their stronghold on misconceived public perception, are the real thoughts behind the words of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Before starting this line of thought, keep in mind that the Second Amendment is the only amendment that refers to an object—weapons. Presumably this indicates how important it was to the founders that the ownership of guns was as important as any other right enshrined in the first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps the right to keep and bear arms is more important than most of our other rights if we are to believe the Bill of Rights is prioritized.

Instead of using our own current interpretations of what the framers of the Second Amendment were thinking, a better insight may come from looking at the framers’ actual words. This way we can at least establish the foundation on which to understand the framers’ intent, not our interpretations.

The following are the thoughts of the framers at the time they were arguing for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as they relate to the militia and the keeping private arms (bold type added to emphasize author’s intent):

“The great object is, that every man be armed…Every one who is able may have a gun.”
--Patrick Henry

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
--Tench Coxe, Feb. 20, 1788

“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
--Richard Henry Lee, February, 1788

“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and…might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
--Tench Coxe, remarking on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”
--Samuel Adams

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
--Patrick Henry

There have also been numerous attempts to compare the somewhat archaic weapons at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, to the AR-style “assault weapons” of today. Typically the argument against the AR-style sporting rifle is that the founders had no idea about these weapons and surely would not have wanted them included in the class of weapons protected by the Second Amendment.

It’s true that the founders probably never envisioned our country’s weaponry as it currently is today. It’s also true that when they wrote the First Amendment protecting freedom of speech they never envisioned the existence of the internet, e-mails, television, radio, or computers and hard drives to store the written or spoken word.

Under this premise, we could also assume that they never intended speech to ever be disseminated via our current methods. Therefore it could be argued that the people today must be content in keeping their communications to that of the methods at the time—a printing press, and shouting—if they are to be protected under the First Amendment. We can all see how ludicrous this last comparison is, yet is it any more ludicrous to think the founders never had the intention of applying the meaning of the Second Amendment to future evolution of arms?

Those in favor of the evolution of our means of free speech are especially quick to use these evolved forms of speech to disseminate their thoughts on how our Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States should somehow be limited. These same people continue to add their two cents to what types of weapons the founders felt should be protected—or not.

The following statements make clear that the idea of the time was simple; that the citizens always have a greater ability than any standing army to defend themselves or the country.

“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sward; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
--Noah Webster, 1787

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
--Thomas Jefferson

“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…"
--Alexander Hamilton speaking on the topic of standing armies

“…most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved.”
--James Burgh

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally…enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
--Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, 1833

And more recently:

“The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”
--Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October, 1959

At the time the founding fathers put our constitution together, while there were no AR style rifles available, they did allow for weapons that were more powerful than the military’s weapons of the time. Their intent was clear—to be armed well enough that no country could take us over. Our founding fathers  knew full well the tyrannical nature of some governments, and wanted us to be armed as well as any government—even our own.

Based on this mindset it could be argued that they would have even intended that we all have fully automatic weapons to keep up with those of the current militaries from around the world.

Even if guns in the hands of irresponsible criminals result in some illegal casualties, it is a far cry from the genocidal murder committed by some governments in countries with gun bans.

Would the Ugandans in Rwanda have been better able to defend against the government’s mass murder if they were armed? Instead of being able to defend themselves from the new party taking over the government, there was a genocidal mass slaughter in 1994. In approximately 100 days over 500,000—or approximately 20% --of the population was wiped out. Some estimates put the death toll at over 1,000,000.

Speaking as to what it would be like if our Second Amendment rights were ever dissolved, Patrick Henry mused, “O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, where with you could defend yourselves, are gone…”

All of this is critically important to remember if we ever elect a President who has shown via voting records, and his underlying subtly stated messages, that he is willing to dismantle any portion of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It is even more important if, at the same time, he is a President decreasing funding to our U.S. Military, weakening our power over foreign invasion and our likelihood we could be invaded by another country with no means of defending ourselves. And while many politicians lie, if a President ever tells you he want to “fundamentally transform our nation’’—when those very fundamentals are what have made us the greatest nation—it would be wise to do what it takes to preserve our arms, just in case he gets to wave his magic wand, put the unsuspecting public under his spell, and make that change.

It is our strong supply of individual private firearms, not the military, that has deterred many nations from invading our homeland. Let’s not fall victim to the smooth-talking politicians while they methodically disarm our population, then wait to see what happens.

If you enjoy freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, or any other liberties in this country, it is critical that you not only thank those who fight for Second Amendment rights, but to support them yourself. For without the full and unfettered force of the Second Amendment it is a matter of when, not if, your other private rights will be dissolved. As stated so often, it is true that the Second Amendment exists as a protection for all the other amendments.

In the next article we’ll take a look at the origin and the original birthplace of our Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.