Sanctuary Counties

In Virginia, 91 of the 96 counties have declared themselves to be 2nd Amendment sanctuaries.  How is it that the state passed a law that the overwhelming majority of counties oppose?  This is a case of urban centers attempting to enforce their preferences in rural areas.  The urban centers are far more populous than the rural areas and can swamp them with votes.  However, a law that may be appropriate for a densely populated city might be unworkable for a low density area.

It is funny that the party that celebrates sanctuary cities, counties, and states when the issue is illegal immigration is outraged when the same tactic is used for gun rights.  Why is it okay - even commendable - for California and Colorado to ignore Federal law as regards marijuana but it is wrong when that same tactic is used by 'the other side' to protect gun rights?  Either we live by the laws that are passed or we have localities nullify laws they don't like.  Pick one and be consistent.

As a fan of federalism, my preference is for localities to govern themselves.  Cities should not be allowed to strong arm rural areas because they have more votes in the legislature.  This is resolved at the federal level with the bicameral legislature but is meaningless at the state level thanks to a Reynolds v. Sims, which negated the point of bicameralism.

It's Not the Guns

The Parkland school shooting in Florida has once again triggered the demands for gun control.  However, the gun is not the problem.  The 2nd Amendment is not the problem.  Semi-automatic weapons have been around for more than a century.  The 2nd Amendment has been around for 230 years.  Where were the school shootings?  When I was in high school in the 80s, there weren't school shootings.  Almost every school shooting has happened in the last 20 years.  The obvious thing is to examine what has changed not blame something that has remained static.

 

Maybe the internet is to blame.  Social media?  The 24/7 news cycle?  Violent and surprisingly realistic video games?  Profanity-laced music?  Changes in parenting?  Kids raised in the last 25 years have had a dramatically different experience than those raised in previous eras.  Some change, maybe a combination of changes, is what has led to these school shootings.  If it was the guns and the 2nd Amendment, there would be school shootings dating back 100 years or more.

Unilateral Disarmament

Trump will occasionally make a very good point but do it in a clumsy manner, especially when the 2nd Amendment is involved.  Hillary is a big fan of gun control, even commending the gun confiscation of Australia at one point.  Of course, Hillary has, and will for the rest of her life, armed Secret Service agents protecting her.  She doesn't need a gun because she has half a dozen people with guns.  Trump suggested that she have her detail disarm and "see what happens."  The way he says it reminds me of Joe Pesci in Goodfellas, which is not a good image for a candidate for president to have.  Still, it makes a valid point.  It is easy for the protected elites to demand that the peasants in fly-over country are disarmed because it will not impact the guns that protect them.

 

Those who demanded the 2nd Amendment feared that a powerful government with a standing army - like they had just experienced with Great Britain - would oppress the people.  Against this fear, they provided that the citizens would be armed with the same weaponry wielded by the military, the musket.  If any of them were around today, they would argue that citizens should be armed with the M4 carbine that is the current standard-issue weapon.  The intent is to make a military takeover nigh impossible.

 

If you desire peace, prepare for war.  That is good advice for a country but also true for citizens with regard to their government.

Open Mouth. Insert Foot.

Trump is the Republican version of Joe Biden.  Biden is a walking gaffe machine but, as VP, that isn't much of a problem.  Besides, Joe is a genial guy that even I find entertaining.  After observing that federal judges appointed by Hillary Clinton would be amenable to eliminating the 2nd Amendment through court rulings, he offered the most clumsy 'vote for me' statement imaginable:

"By the way if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know."

When you consider how quickly his suggestion that Russia release the rest of Hillary's emails became prima facie evidence that he was committing treason, it will take even less time for this to be converted into a call for assassination.  The campaign later clarified with a slightly less awkward appeal for votes.  One of the best things about Trump is that he is not scripted.  One of the worst things about Trump is that he is not scripted.

Defending the Right to Self-Defense

Here is a proposed law that I could support if the language was sufficiently clear.  If a business is going to ban guns on the premises, that business should be liable if a gun owner is injured or killed while obeying that ban.  The liability would be limited to things where a gun would have provided the opportunity of self-defense.  For instance, a crazed gunman on the premises would be covered, an earthquake would not.  If patrons are required to be disarmed, the business must take the responsibility to defend them should the need arise.

 

Of course, no matter how well-crafted the law, it will fall upon courts to decide.  Does a person who knowingly enters a gun-free zone forfeit a right to self-defense?  That could lead to every business being gun-free and the 2nd Amendment rendered largely moot outside the confines of private homes.  Do you always have a right to defend yourself?  As the law stands now, the answer is no.  Can a business, or even government, abridge the right to self-defense?  Currently, they can.

 

Whenever there is talk of gun rights, I think of this scene from Code of Silence.  Criminals hate it when their would-be victims can fight back.  Ever notice how there are no mass shootings where one of the victims shot back?  That's because those are the shootings that are stopped before the death toll can rise to the level of a mass shooting.

Government is the Most Dangerous Mass Murderer

Yet another crazy has gone on a shooting spree in a gun free zone and there are immediately calls for gun control.  Yes, gun control has done wonders for Chicago, New York, and Washington DC.  Let's bring that same gun murder rate to the rest of the country.  The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to bear arms because the people have a right to defend themselves.  That right was denied to certain groups in the 20th century and it didn't turn out well.

In 1911, the Ottoman Empire banned guns.  A few years later, a million and a half Armenians were murdered.  The Soviet Union banned guns in 1929.  The following decade, millions of Ukrainian Kulaks were murdered through mass starvation.  Dissident Russians found themselves sent to Siberian gulags.  In 1938, Germany banned guns.  Shortly thereafter, millions of Jews were shipped off to death camps.  Where the Jews managed to have weapons, there were uprisings, the most famous of which was the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943.  China had banned guns in the 1930s, just in time for the Japanese invasion.  Oddly, the ban was still in effect after the war and during the rule of Mao Zedong.  Up to 50 million Chinese were killed during Mao's Cultural Revolution.  Cambodia instituted total gun control in 1956.  When Pol Pot seized power two decades later, he exterminated 2 million unarmed Cambodians, a quarter of the country's population.  Cuba, North Korea, and Iran do not allow private citizens to have guns.

 

This is not to say that gun control automatically leads to mass murder by the government.  Both the United Kingdom and Japan have very strict gun control but it is unlikely that a government will arise in either that would murder its citizens.  But if one did, the people would be helpless to resist.  And that is why we have the 2nd Amendment.  Yes, there are costs to such liberal gun laws.  These costs are only made worse by gun free zones.  The way to stop a bad guy with a gun is for a good guy with a gun to arrive on scene.  All those law-abiding citizens are necessarily disarmed while law is no impediment to the shooter.

 

Today's government might want to take your gun for what it views as good and rational reason.  It will do you no harm and in fact only have your best interest at heart.  However, tomorrow's government - perhaps 20 years from now - might look upon you as a nuisance that has no means to resist its will.

Guns vs. Healthcare

I recently saw a cartoon that contrasted the fact that Americans have a right to guns but not to healthcare.  Clever, right?  The problem is that even a cursory look at the comparison shows it to be nonsense.  No one is required to buy a gun for me whereas this right to healthcare would require someone to pay for my medical care if I was unable.

If there was an amendment for healthcare similar to the 2nd Amendment, it might say something to the effect that "the right of the people to purchase healthcare insurance shall not be infringed."  Would banning cross-state purchase of insurance be an infringement?  Would requiring that Americans buy government-approved health insurance plans be an infringement?  Or going the other way, does the 2nd Amendment require every American to own a gun or be forced to pay a fine to the IRS?  Do we need to demonstrate gun ownership on a yearly basis?  Does the gun have to have all sorts of extras that we don't need or want?

 

The Rights listed in the Constitution do not require that someone else provide them.  The Right to Free Speech doesn't require taxpayers to provide a forum in which to speak.  The Right to Practice Religion doesn't require that the government build the church.  By the same logic, a Right to Healthcare should not require the government/taxpayers to purchase it.

 

The confusion here is entitlement vs. right.  Americans have a right to bear arms but an entitlement to Social Security.  Social Security is not a right.  Nor is Medicare.  Nor is health insurance as determined by Obamacare.  These are all programs for transferring money from the person who earned it to someone who didn't.  I'm in favor of Rights - which our government was established to secure - but I'm opposed to entitlements.

What is the Goal?

Former Congressman Gabby Giffords testified before Congress today.  As a victim of gun violence, she looks to be an ideal person to call for gun control, much like Jim Brady in the wake of his injury during an assassination attempt against Reagan.  However, the big push is for a new assault weapon ban while Ms. Gifford was shot with a handgun.  So, she is testifying purely for the emotional optics, not because anything the Congress might do would have prevented what happened to her.

What of the proposed ban?  If it had been in place last year, would Adam Lanza have been prevented from taking his mother's guns and shooting children at the elementary school?  No.  If the law being proposed would not have stopped the crime that prompted its passage, what is the point?

The vast majority - over 90% - of gun-related murders are committed with handguns, not 'assault' rifles.  Imagine that 90% of car accidents were caused by drinking while 3% were caused by smoking and the Congress seeks to outlaw smoking while driving to address the carnage on the roadways.  Would that make sense?  So, wouldn't it make more sense to outlaw handguns?

Are these Senators and Congressmen stupid?  No, they know they can't get handguns at this time but they might be able to pick off 'assault' rifles.  Maybe next time they will press for a limit of 6 bullets in a clip or magazine.  It is a piecemeal approach.  If guns can be restricted bit by bit, eventually all guns will be illegal and the 2nd Amendment will cease to exist.

Lexington and Concord

Though anyone who took American History or watched School House Rock on Saturday morning TV likely knows that the "Shot heard 'round the world" was fired at Lexington, few realize the cause.  An equal number likely recall that Paul Revere warned that the British were coming.  Hadn't the British already been here for many years?  What was happening that caused all the fuss?  General Thomas Gage, Military Governor of Massachusetts, had been given orders to disarm the militias.  Yes, the British were going to rove the countryside and disarm the people.  The plan didn't go over well.  The American Revolution started when the people resisted Gun Control!

Now, with that in mind, let's ponder the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The British (i.e. the government) wanted to disarm the people.  Why?  Because it is easier to rule people who don't have the means to resist.  All governments like to have a monopoly on guns.  Our government is no different.  Today it will be 'assault rifles' and tomorrow it will be automatic pistols, and then it will be shotguns and revolvers.  It is a long process and the government is patient.  At the end of the process lies tyranny.  The Framers of the Constitution knew this.  If we interpreted the 2nd Amendment the way they meant it, there would the latest military rifle over every mantle.

 

Now for some interesting facts:

 

All mass shootings have taken place at gun-free zones.

 

More people are bludgeoned to death with hammers or clubs than are killed with rifles.  Hammer control, anyone?

 

The murder rate in the US had fallen by 50% over the last 20 years.  Violent crime has likewise fallen by a similar amount.

 

The Assault Weapons Ban had no statistical impact on crime.

 

Crime rates dropped in Texas and Florida when they passed Concealed Carry laws.

 

Chicago and Washington DC, cities with strict gun control, have high murder rates and violent crime rates.

 

Though the US murder rate is higher than the UK, our violent crime rate is much lower.  Why doesn't that get reported?

 

The Second Amendment provides the people with the means to resist oppressive government; the Founders were familiar with oppressive government and wanted to prevent it in the future.  Not surprisingly, government isn't too keen on that.  By hook or by crook, government wants to disarm the people.  So, the government is telling us that it is disarming us for our own good, to protect us, to keep us safe.  It sells much better that way.  Even if the current government truly and honestly only wants to protect us, a future government will not be so benevolent when it sees a populace unable to resist its will.

President Obama and the 2nd Amendment

I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a national heritage, but I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals; that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.

President Barack Obama

I beg to differ. The right to bear arms was not so that Americans could engage in the ‘national heritage’ of ‘hunting and shooting.’ President Obama paints a dichotomy that AK-47s should be with soldiers, not criminals? So, if you aren’t a soldier and have an AK, can one infer that you are probably a criminal? He has declared that only government-sanction individuals (i.e. soldiers) should have AKs. The .70 caliber flintlock musket was the military assault weapon of its day. If we had a modern militia in the sense the Founders viewed it, there would be an M-16 on the mantle of most homes. He reiterates this dichotomy by stating that AKs should be on battlefields, not our streets. So, though he claims to believe in the right to bear arms, he has a restricted view of it.

The right to bear arms was provided so that We the People and the several States could defend ourselves from powerful central government, like the one of King George III. The American Revolution would not have lasted long nor been concluded successfully if muskets were only in the hands of soldiers (that would be the Redcoats), not on the streets of our cities (e.g. Lexington, Concord, Boston, etc.). Americans were able to break free from an oppressive government because they were armed. They were armed for self-defense, not for ‘shooting.’ The purpose of an armed citizenry is to be one of the checks on government, which is why big government supporters don’t like the Second Amendment.