Guns, Terrorists, Crime and The People

One result of the terrorist threats is a steady business in the gun shops.  Many thousands of Americans have been purchasing their first weapon, then wondering about all the little associated problems -- like, what to do with it.

That handgun is designed to kill people.  That's about it.  Other than acting as a paperweight in the "in box," there's not much else it can do effectively.

On the other hand, handguns have a lot in common with other tools, such as a chain saw or automobiles.  All can kill people when used improperly.  All require some specific knowledge to operate properly.  And, we should never allow kids access to any of them unless under strict supervision.

Some people teach kids to drive at a very young age -- I learned when I was twelve.  Even more Americans teach their children to shoot at a young age.  Personally, I helped teach some Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts a few decades ago.  The fact is, in many areas of the country, it is common to see young boys, not yet old enough to drive, carrying guns around.  We did, as kids.

Shooting should be a family affair.  Children need not learn to shoot with dad's 357 magnum, or even a 9mm.  The trusty 22 is available for that and I still own the original Ruger 22 semiautomatic handgun that was evidently designed with young kids in mind.  Still today, neighbor men borrow that Ruger to teach their sons and daughters to shoot safely.  My only requirement is that they also make care and cleaning of the pistol a part of that training.

It is not just our right to protect home and family, it is also our duty.  Police are spread thin in most communities and usually stay busy.  We are our own first line of defense.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal in "Only Guns Can Stop Terrorists," Professor John R. Lott, Jr. reported:  "States that pass concealed handgun laws experience drops in violent crimes, especially in multiple victim shootings -- the type of attack most associated with terrorism.  Bill Landes and I found that deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell by 80% after states passed right-to-carry laws."[1]

In some areas of the country, some men sometimes openly carry handguns.  For many reasons, I prefer concealed carry, but that is my personal preference.  Nonetheless, those who carry openly make a very good point.  They want potential terrorists and other types of misbehaving cretins to know that any type of threatened violence will be met with immediate force.

The liberals, of course, get all bent out of shape about either open or concealed carry.  However, both are allowed in many areas of the country, so there is nothing the liberal gun grabbers can do about it -- other than whine.

John Lott reports a self-evident fact:  "It's harder to victimize armed citizens."  Now that more than 30 states issue concealed carry permits for almost anyone who wants one and takes the training, there are millions of good Americans who are often both armed and well trained.  Which means, there is also likely to be a number of good armed Americans able to respond in an emergency.  This could be a rather significant surprise, and deterrent, for a would-be terrorist.

The average citizen cannot do much of anything to stop the use of aircraft as bombs, of course.  Still, there are a number of other things we all can and should do -- such as pay attention to what is happening around us.  If something happens that is too unusual and out of place, call it in and let the armed men who also have badges investigate the situation.

Because, even though millions of good citizens may be armed today, they are also trained to understand that there are very few instances when they may actually legally use their weapons.  The protection of self, family and others nearby from instant harm is one instance.  But, that's about it.

Everything else is police work. And to initiate that, the legal weapon of choice is still the telephone.

So why are we walking around armed?  Because, as Professor John R. Lott, Jr. reported:  "States that pass concealed handgun laws experience drops in violent crimes, especially in multiple victim shootings."  As many studies show, when honest citizens, competent with weapons, are walking about armed, all of society benefits.  It is as simple as that.

About Our Gun Rights:

One useful fact all Americans should keep in mind is that they have no "right" to be protected by the police.  American police are reactive, not proactive.  They don't usually "prevent" crime.  They catch lawbreakers after they have committed a crime.

This was by design of the Founding Fathers.  Because, as we see today with the anti-terrorism laws, in order to "prevent" crime, police would need all sorts of obnoxious powers that would trample all over our rights of life, liberty and property.

Instead, Americans were intended to have the means of self defense.  Put another way, the Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to restrict American citizens from keeping and bearing arms.  Rather, the Second Amendment clearly instructs those in government that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers #46:  "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Thomas Jefferson also recognized the need for citizens to be armed:  "A strong body makes the mind strong.  As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun.  While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind.  Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind.  Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."  (Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967])

As late as the 1960s, members of Congress agreed that the American people have an inherent right to keep and bear arms.  Even the most liberal Democrats recognized that right: "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms.  This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced.  But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

That was Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, later to become Vice President under L.B. Johnson; quoted in a "Know Your Lawmakers" article in Guns Magazine, February 1960.

Even in the 1980s, Senators were grudgingly admitting that a private citizen has the right to own and carry firearms.  According to the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), chairman, in the Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982):  "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

So, what happened?  If these Senators knew perfectly well that the American people have a Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, why did they turn tail and allow all those unconstitutional gun control laws to be enacted?  Or, perhaps we should ask: Why is there no punishment for those lawmakers, judges and bureaucrats who knowingly and intentionally violate the Constitution?  Are they now above our Constitution?

Anyway, there is a very interesting story behind the federal gun control scheme.  Over the years, some have said that the federal gun control laws smelled a lot like the old Nazi gun control laws.  And, maybe they do.

Apparently, the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 has quite a lot in common with the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.  One popular gun rights group looked up the old Nazi law and compared it with the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968.  As they report:

"Members of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) consider 'gun control' to be an aggressive cancer.  JPFO has a cure, a way to destroy 'gun control'. JPFO has hard evidence that shows that the Nazi Weapons Law (March 18, 1938) is the source of the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA '68).  Adolph Hitler signed the Nazi Weapons Law.  The Gestapo (Nazi National Secret Police) enforced it.  In 'Gun Control': Gateway to Tyranny we present the official German text of the Nazi Weapons Law and a side-by-side translation into English.  Even more deadly: a side-by-side, section-by-section comparison of the GCA '68 with the Nazi Weapons Law.  If you have this in your hands, no one can tell you that you're imagining things."

JPFO is hopping mad about this, as we all should be.  They present evidence and name the names of those in government who spearheaded this treacherous nonsense.  Some people named are still on Capitol Hill.

For a great outline of the story (and names), visit the JPFO web site.[2] If you are interested in Constitutional issues and your right as an American to keep and bear arms, you will find this page very interesting.

Then comes the problem: How do we correct it?

1. <http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001226>

2. <http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm>