Why gun control?

     “I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe.  There is no nation on Earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow.  Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter: from the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence.”   --Daniel Webster.

     The greatest enemy of America’s freedoms is not from outside invaders.  It isn’t from communist China, North Korea or Islamic terrorists.  No, freedom’s greatest enemy is internal and it’s three-fold: ignorance and apathy on the part of the American people and a desire to grow power on the part of those already in power. 
     Generations of a public education system that no longer emphasizes our Nation’s history or a knowledge of civics—thanks to the “Father of modern education” (and avowed Socialist), John Dewey—coupled with a population the willingly chooses to not know or understand their founding documents have allowed apathy to take hold in society.  They don’t--or won’t--see the gradual destruction of the basic freedoms we used to hold so dear; freedoms and ideals set forth centuries ago that, over the years, so many have sacrificed to secure and defend.  To be bothered with learning, thinking and decision-making has become much too difficult a task; especially when they can look to their favorite celebrity or hero politician to tell them what to think.  It’s so much easier to have those duties taken care of by someone else.  This is the thinking—or not thinking—that allows our so-called leaders to run rampant over our Constitution and to grow their own power.

     With the promise of “free” services, guaranteed happiness and that those who have more (the “evil” rich) will be punished for daring to be successful, complete support is gained—or bought, if you will.  So, when something like McCain/Feingold is passed—destroying true political free speech for all but the mainstream media or wealthy individuals backing Political Action Committees—the people shrug their shoulders and yawn.  When a Patriot Act is signed into law; even with its over-reaching police powers (including warrantless searches and wiretaps), it’s the people’s ignorance of law and constraint and their desire for  safety at all costs that allow it to happen.  When a President states his desire—and even begins the process—for a “Civilian National Security Force, “just as powerful, just as well funded as our military,” the people just look the other way.  As long as their own little bubble of a world isn’t directly affected by any of these power grabs, then it doesn’t matter to the people what their government does.
And now, following a horrendous mass killing in Connecticut comes another assault on the Constitution.  With promises of safety, security and “we’re not going to take your guns,” President Obama is touring the country pushing a new era of gun control measures.  He, along with Vice President Biden, has stated that they have no desire to take our guns or to not allow you to defend your home or hunt or go sport shooting.  They say they only want “common sense” gun control laws that will save lives.  President Obama has even said that what he wants implemented will “stop” these acts (mass shootings) from happening again.  But what they really want is to further dismantle the Constitution and they are attempting to so under the guise of a “safety” that can never exist.

     The first ten Amendments to the Constitution, what are called the Bill Of Rights, were written and ratified for one reason; to stop the federal government from trampling our “natural, God-given rights.”  These rights: freedom of speech, religion, assembly, freedom from self-incrimination and from illegal search and seizure, and the freedom to keep and bear arms are all protected individual rights that our government is not allowed to infringe upon.  In fact, they are fundamental and inalienable right that our government is supposed to uphold and defend; not destroy.

     To understand the words of the Second Amendment, one first has to look at history.  Since Medieval times, most European countries had laws that required people to participate in citizen militias.  These people were not a standing army under a monarch’s direct control but rather, were ordinary citizens with their own arms (weapons) who came when their monarch needed them; whether to maintain civil order or for national security.  Over time, though, things started to change.  Political and religious conflicts were becoming more common and the citizen militias were being used more and more as political police forces.  As many citizens refused to be used in this way, more and more were being disarmed.  In England, Oliver Cromwell started the trend of building a standing, paid army; answerable only to the government.  Throughout the 17^th century, as unrest grew “politically unreliable” citizens were disarmed and professional armies were built up.  Continued through the reigns of Charles II and James II, these practices convinced the populace that the government must not be allowed to disarm its own people.

In 1689, the English Parliament produced the Declaration of Right, in which the independent right of ownership of arms—not dependent of militia membership—was written.  This document was one of the inspirations for America’s founding fathers as they worked out the writing of our constitution and Bill of Rights…including the Second Amendment.  Written in that particular Amendment is the phrase “well regulated,” which, at the time, meant “well trained.”  Therefore, the argument that the Amendment actually means to be “regulated” by the government (the military) is a fallacious argument.  The vast commentary of the Founding Fathers supports private-owned arms by the American people; with no government permission, no government oversight and no government registration of ownership.
     “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a state of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
 --George Washington

     “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

 --Samuel Adams

     “No Freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.  The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
 --Thomas Jefferson writing the draft for the Virginia Constitution

     Spring forward to our current administration and its demand for a massive expansion of federal gun control powers.  President Obama and the Democrats have latched onto a horrible tragedy (Newtown, Connecticut) and are using it to push an agenda they have been pushing for decades.  The bill put forward by Dianne Feinstein is one she wrote a  long time ago, tweaked a year ago—in readiness for Obama’s expected second term—and had on the shelf waiting for an opportunity to bring it before the American people.  They are using the suffering and pain of all those Families for their own personal and political agenda.  Newtown was the event they could take advantage of and use to manipulate emotions and push for their desired ends; ends that are far from their stated desires for safety and security.

     We have to remember that in the Liberal; or Progressive, mind—particularly for those in a position of power—is the belief that they are superior in intelligence to the “ unwashed masses.”  The Progressive mind sees the government (the State) as the be-all and end-all of all that’s good, compassionate, and great.  The individual who actually dares to espouse freedom and self-reliance alarms and angers them.  “We know best” and “government experts know more how to run your life than do you” are their beliefs.  For the Progressive, the most alarming and frightening act of individualism any American citizen can commit is to exercise their Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”  Whether for personal security, hunting, sport, or the actual intent of the Founders; to be a safeguard against tyranny, the Progressive cannot abide this act of self-reliance over government dependence.  In their eyes, government is the father, the progenitor, the surety and the safety we should all look to and rely upon.  In the progressive mind, anyone showing individualism, talking of Constitutional freedoms and rights, or speaking out against their glorious leader (at the moment, Barrack Obama) is an enemy; not just someone they disagree with, but an enemy.

     This rabid zealotry of the Left is based purely on feelings and emotionalism…and the need to control (for our own good, of course).  “We need to save lives” is the stated goal, but when looking at the facts, it’s easy to see—for those willing to do so—that the ultimate goal is control.  And to gain their desired control the Progressive mindset relies in deceit; with the Saul Alinsky (the philosophical hero of the Left) idea that the end always justifies the means.  In other words, if the Progressive leader needs to lie and manipulate to do it, he or she will do or say whatever they need to in order to push, pull, trick and convince the people to come to their way of thinking. They will prey on emotions, they will deceive, and then they will control.  Remember that Barack Obama, while a professor in Chicago, taught the Alinsky philosophy—to foment civil discord through encouraging class envy, redistribution of wealth, racial animosity, anti-Christian bigotry and a reliance on the State—and uses that philosophy as his political model.
     This is how the progressive mind is pushing their quest for massively expanded gun and magazine bans and limits.  Our President has stated that what he is demanding (“assault weapons” ban, high capacity magazine ban, and more) will put an end to such tragedies as happened in Connecticut.  What he and other leading progressives have done is exploit a horrible tragedy in order to advance an agenda that was waiting on a shelf; waiting for and event.  That event was the murders in Newtown  and as soon as it occurred, they knew they had their emotional anchor.  They have exploited it in order to manipulate a large portion of the population in to believing that they--our so-called leaders—can draft legislation that will do away with criminality and danger and make us all safe.  The great problem with that thinking is that they can’t.

     In the normalcy that is American society they can’t legislate or mandate away violence.  They can pass laws, mandate punishments, put more police on the streets and even tell those who are willing to rob, rape and murder that using a gun is illegal, but they can’t stop criminals from committing crimes.  With that impossibility in mind, think about the abnormality in society; over and above the basic criminal activity, the aberration and evil that is mass killing sprees.  These acts—unforeseeable, unimaginable and horrific—will never be touched by any legislation…ever!  A sick, twisted, hate-filled, evil mind will always find a way to accomplish their crime.  The height of hubris on the part of our leaders, and the height of naiveté on the part of the gun-control supporters are believing that "assault weapons" bans and magazine restrictions will stop someone bent on death and destruction.  All they will accomplish is making instant criminals out of millions of law-abiding gun owners; which is, of course, the ultimate plan of the Progressive in the first place.  It’s not about safety and security; it’s about control.

     As this debate burns around the country and we listen to the proponents of expanded gun control, each one of us has to choose what to believe.  While pushing hard for a new “assault weapons” ban, President Obama stated that he fully supports the Second Amendment right to defend your home or to go hunting and sport shooting.  He also stated that he “isn’t here to take your guns” and “we’re not talking about registration.”  Of course, looking at his many statements of the past decades, one gets a different idea of his views on gun ownership.  While running for the Illinois Senate in 1996, he state “I support banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns and the manufacture, sale and possession of assault weapons.”  While running for re-election for his seat in 1998, he pledged his support to “ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semiautomatic weapons.”  He also pushed for maintaining government files on every legal gun owner; including mug-shot style photos and fingerprints.  So, long before becoming President and long before the Newtown tragedy, Barack Obama, supporting a voting for every piece of gun control legislation that came before him, very plainly made his views on gun ownership known; he loathes private gun ownership.
     Senator Dianne Feinstein, the architect of both the 1994 assault weapons ban and the newest attempt to re-instate—and grow—a federal assault weapons ban, has also stated her support of the Second Amendment right to self-defense: “I own a handgun.”  She has also stated that she doesn’t want registration or to “take away your guns.”  Yet, in 1994, after successfully pushing through her assault weapons ban, she stated in an interview her deep desire to take every weapon from every American citizen: “if I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them—Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in—I would have done it.  I could not do that; the votes weren’t there.”  Which one of the Feinstein’s do we listen to, the one who “supports the Second amendment, or the one who desires to completely disarm “Mr. and Mrs. America.”

     Maybe we should listen to Vice President Joe Biden when, after a gun control meeting with fellow Democrats, he stated at a press conference these sentiments: “…there are things that we can do, demonstrably can do, that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self-defense or recreation that can save some lives.”  He continued by saying “nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring deaths down.”  This man, who has been lauded as the greatest Vice President in the history of America, essentially said that the government wants to enact massive new laws, restricting law abiding citizens on what they can buy, yet those same new laws won’t save lives or make us any safer.  And most recently, our Vice President has stated that “an assault weapons ban is just the beginning” and that “universal background checks can’t be undertaken without the understanding that is it a de-facto registration of gun owners.”  So, while saying it isn’t about registration or confiscation, he says it is about registration—which always leads to confiscation and that these measures “for safety” aren’t going to make us safe. 
     Perhaps we should listen to the words of Illinois Representative Jan Schakowsky.  When asked if the assault weapons ban is just the beginning, she answered “oh, absolutely; I’m against handguns.”  After the reporter pointed out that “we’ll never get a handgun ban with the Second Amendment as stated,” Schakowsky responded by saying “I don’t know that we can’t; I don’t think it’s precluded.”  She may be one of the most forthcoming of gun control advocates in Washington.  Or perhaps we should listen to the ACLU—yes,  the ACLU—when even they have come out and voiced opposition to universal background checks because they gather far too much information and have “historically been used in confiscation schemes.”
     What we should do is to heed the words of the Justice Department and the FBI, both of which have said that there is no evidence that points to any effect on crime or criminality do to the previous assault weapons ban.  We should listen to Professors Koper and Roth of the National Institute for Justice who, after being hired by the government (Dianne Feinstein), announced that “the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect from the assault weapons ban. 

     The question, then, comes back again to “why.”  With all the evidence showing that the proposed laws will have no effect on criminal activity and that the previous bans were ineffectual, why do our leaders still push for new, expanded gun control laws?  Again, the answer is control—power and control over those considered inferior by those in power.   By taking advantage of people’s need to “do something” after a tragedy (mostly to make themselves feel good about themselves), our political leaders can manipulate the argument to their advantage and thereby grow their own power.
     Yes, I am thankful and feel very blessed to be an American, yet, in my gratitude, I also am very concerned about where America is being taken.   Over the last century, this Nation has slowly—though it’s recently been at a faster pace—transformed from a Constitutional Republic to a near Imperial Presidency.  Slowly, incrementally and possibly irreparably, we have given our freedoms over to a government run amuck.  Barack Obama is one who has shown, through his words and actions, that he has a disdain and loathing for the constraints of the Constitution. Backed by sycophantic party members and a national media that’s happy to not only cheer-lead a Progressive mindset, but to actually campaign for a Socialistic change in America, they would having us bend to their politically correct ideology by trading in fear, emotionalism and uncertainty; and thereby garner more power for themselves and the government and the ability to intrude more and more in our lives.  Expanded gun control measures and eventual confiscation is, at the moment, their greatest desire. 

     As George Washington said: “laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those whom are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.  Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage rather than to prevent homicide.  For an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”