A History Lesson

On December 18, 2012February 25, 2013 By Tom LindsayIn Gun Rights, RKBA2 Comments

“Why does anyone need to own a military gun?”

You hear it from the anti-gun crowd, who fear the gun with a phobia. And, strangely, you hear it from hunters, who look on the new technology with disdain, unaware that they are reinforcing the anti-gun crowd’s message.

With the recent events in the news, I hear it on TV and in the media all the time, so I thought I might take a minute to convey this history lesson.

First, every gun started out as a military gun. That was the nature of the invention. Firearms development is expensive, and the expense can only be justified and recouped by a lucrative government contract. Thus has it ever been, until recent expansions of the market represented by hunting guns made it sustainable of itself.

Second, especially to the hunters, I say, your argument has been made from the beginning, and dismissed. The first hunters to field muskets were probably vocally abused by archers. Then, musket hunters looked down on muzzle loading rifle users, who in turn reviled breach loading rifle users, who then shunned bolt action rifle users. And, remember, the elegant bolt action of the revered Remington* Model 700 is, in fact, the Mauser 98 action, fielded by Hitler’s best.

New guns are introduced all the time, because they are more accurate, lighter, and better. The new “modern sporting rifle” is no exception. Yes, it is based on the AR-15 platform. Get used to it, and get over it.

+++++

Ironically, there are those who argue that civilians have no need to own a military rifle. These same people argue that the militia clause in the Second Amendment – “A well regulated militia” – means that only the organized militia has the right to own guns, not individuals.

However, in that vein, the Supreme Court, in the case of DC v. Heller, held that the Second Amendment was an individual right. The militia clause (which they called the prefatory clause) explains this, when one understands that the militia, today as in 1791, consists of all able bodied citizens of military age.

Here’s where the irony comes in: these people who claim the militia clause precludes individual ownership of any gun, turn around and ignore the militia clause when considering military guns. In fact, in the same Heller case, the Supreme Court held

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home.”

Thus, not only is it every citizen’s right to own guns, it is our right to own military guns, since the highest calling of that right would be in defense of the security of our free state.

* Edited. The original posting said “Winchester Model 700” which doesn’t exist. (Without this note the comment wouldn’t make any sense . . .)

How To Prevent Mass Shootings

On December 17, 2012 By Tom LindsayIn Gun Free Zones, Gun Rights, Molon Labe, Paradigm Shift, RKBA2 Comments

Like most Americans, I was saddened and outraged by the shootings last week in Newtown, Connecticut. My heart goes out to the parents, children, and citizens of that town, and the responders and others involved.

As expected, the media and the President have completely avoided the true nature of this tragedy, and, in so doing, will avoid the best lasting actions we can take to prevent them in the future.

The real cause of this shooting wasn’t evil assault rifles, or high capacity clips, or lack of gun safes. It was the concept of the “gun free zone.”

The people in that school, as in schools across America, were completely at the mercy of anyone who decided to come in with the intent of doing them harm. The same goes for anyone at a venue that has been declared off limits to guns.

That’s because criminals and nutjobs don’t pay attention to the signs on the door. And it’s not because the penalties for violating the gun free zone are too lax, as someone from the CSGV once tried to argue with me. No amount of penalty will deter someone who is determined to break the law, especially since the threat of life in prison or execution isn’t going to deter them from murder.

So, how do we prevent this kind of incident in the future? Simply, do away with gun free zones.

Of course, the first argument that follows is that armed children, or teachers, or anyone, would not be expected to be able to prevail in a gun battle with someone so heavily armed. Unfortunately this argument misses the nature of these incidents as well.

You see, it isn’t the armed teacher or customer that wins this battle, so much as the threat of armed teachers or customers.

Just the possibility of the presence armed resistance will keep our children and shoppers and worshipers safe. Why? Because the people who perpetrate these horrific acts are cowards through and through. In every instance, when confronted by the first responder with a gun, they kill themselves.

If you need proof, look my home town of Kennesaw, Georgia. Famously, every homeowner is required by a city ordinance to own a gun. And the theaters and malls around allow guns to be carried. And, as a result, the crime rate here is among the lowest in the country, and, more to the point, there has never been a mall shooting or theater shooting here, ever.

In fact, even normal armed robbery has been prevented on at least one occasion, because of the presence of civilians, lawfully carrying guns.

So, the real course to take is two-fold. First, enhance the care we give to the mentally ill, and develop a system to integrate their treatment with the NICS background system. This is tricky ground, though, because of health privacy concerns, and I won’t offer anything beyond that.

But, regardless of what we do with the mentally ill, we must act to abolish government mandated gun free zones.

As gun owners and consumers, we can do our part by avoiding businesses that choose to prohibit lawful carry of firearms, and make sure the owners of those businesses know we are doing so.

And, in the meantime, we must continue the course, and remind those who want to latch on to an inanimate object as a cause of evil, that it is, instead, evil people who are at fault, and evil people, by their nature, will merely laugh at your attempts to take their guns. And, we must remind them that the end game of any gun confiscation scheme they may enact is that only the evil people will have guns, and that they will then be at the mercy of evil people. By then it will be too late.

Return Of The Next Big Scare

On November 8, 2012June 5, 2013 By Tom LindsayIn 2AF, Gun Rights, NRA, Politics, Rant, RKBA, United Nations3 Comments

It seems that the possibility of a UN Arms Trade Treaty, which I first wrote about in June 2011, has returned, and, in the wake of the re-election of President Obama, it has gotten quite a few otherwise intelligent gun owners quite worked up. The word is that this treaty would require anything from the confiscation of all our guns to the cessation of the manufacture of ammunition.

My point today is to reassure gun owners that no blue-hatted soldier is going to show up at your door and take your guns. This treaty, while attractive to the anti-gun factions, is dead as far as the United States is concerned, and, if it were enacted, would not result in any change in our right to keep and bear arms.

Please consider these facts carefully, and use them as defense against anti-gunners who would attempt to scare you with the prospect of some foreign organization finally accomplishing what they could never hope to do.

Now, there are those in the pro-gun camp whose personalities and modes of thinking tend to lead them to see a conspiracy and a hidden agenda in everything. To those I say that this will be my last word on this subject, barring future developments that change the facts. I will tell you that you are wrong, and point you to these facts.

++++

Now, having said all that, is there cause for concern? Of course. But is there cause for foaming-at-the-mouth panic? No.

Why? Consider the following:

First, Article VI of the Constitution states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

Thus, only treaties that are executed as outlined in the Constitution are enforceable as law.

Second, Article II states:

The President . . . shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

So, while the President can execute treaties, the Senate must ratify them, by a two thirds majority. This means that 67 Senators would have to ratify any treaty.

In July 2012 Senator Jerry Moran, R-KS, sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, expressing opposition to the UN Arms Trade Treaty. It was signed by 51 Senators, although since that time, Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts has been defeated and will be replaced. However, it is important to note that defeat of this treaty requires only 34 Senators.

Thus, ratification of this treaty is impossible under the current Senate.

++++

But, if the treaty were ratified, would this mean we, as citizens, would be subject to its provisions, to the exclusion of the Second Amendment? No.

As it turns out, the Constitution takes precedent over treaties. In Reid v. Covert, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties. Specifically it held that “no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.”

And, given that the Heller case and MacDonald case have upheld that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms, no treaty can force a change in that legal stance.

Of course, there is the possibility that, if the treaty were enforced, there would be arguments that it now represents the law of the land. Fortunately, we have courts in this country, and our arguments would be swift, and insurmountable.

Having said that, this begs the question of who would mount such a legal challenge. Almost certainly that would fall to the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation. These organizations’ political influence and legal prowess have been shown time and again. Say what you will about their fundraising or political goings-on, the anti-gun factions fear them, and for good reason.

And having said that, this begs the question of whether you are a member of the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation. If not, I urge you to join today.

++++

Now, it is true that the government has, at times, attempted to enforce treaties, or parts of treaties, that were not ratified by the Senate. One example frequently given by those who are currently up in arms is the UN Law of the Sea Treaty. Even though the Senate has never ratified this treaty, many US agencies, such as NOAA, have adopted provisions of the treaty as part of their operating procedures. This has drawn the ire of may groups, understandably.

However, the limits of territorial waters is not part of the Constitution, so, technically, it isn’t subject to the judgment of Reid v. Covert.

++++

Of course, one reaction I get is that the President would just bypass Congress, sign the treaty, and enforce it by confiscating all the guns.

To that, I have two reactions. First, to those who honestly believe that any President could or would attempt such an obviously seditious and treasonous act, I say, “Really?” You really have a skewed view of the power of the President, much less his political will.

Second, to those who would attempt such a confiscation, I believe I would be joined by millions of other Americans in quoting Leonidas at Thermopylae, “Come and take them.”

Is The Message Clear?

On October 12, 2012 By Tom LindsayIn Politics, RKBA, Twitter1 Comment

Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

We in the gun community use the phrase all the time. We know what it means. Don’t regulate our guns, instead, lock up the criminals. Yet, a person on the outside of the gun community doesn’t see it the same way we do.

Case in point: I ran across this today on Twitter, with the hashtag #guncontrol:

Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Probably the most ignorant ass hat backwards slogan/statement ever!

My reply to this was simple:

The point of that statement is even if you remove all guns from the world you will still have people who will kill others.

Gun control advocates see guns as the evil common denominator in the gun violence equation, and I can understand why. They are, after all, the easiest part of the problem to see and understand. Someone is hurt or dead, and a gun was involved. If we removed the gun from the system, then no harm would have happened.

In truth, this is a simplistic and ignorant way to look at violence. It is the person who committed the violence who is at fault, not the gun. The fact that millions of guns are never involved in crime is ignored. In fact, if you were to point this out, you would probably be answered by one word: “Yet.”

Thus, we see gun “control” advocates for what they really are, even if they refuse to admit it: gun confiscation advocates.

The problem with this, of course, is that these people don’t stop to consider my counterpoint, that, even in the absence of guns, the person who committed the assault or murder remains. And, there is enough evidence from countries and regions where guns are not as easily available that these criminals would, in the absence of guns, seek other weapons, and commit the same heinous crimes.

The gun confiscation advocates also completely discount the possibility that the motives of the person holding the gun could in any way influence how the gun is used. All guns, in their eyes, are used to indiscriminately kill innocent victims. Never mind the easily completed math:

According to the GunPolicy.org, operated by the University of Sidney, there are 270,000,000 privately owned firearms in the United States. In 2009 there were 9,146 firearms-related homicides. If we assume each homicide was committed with a unique firearm (which is an over-simplification, given that we know of multiple homicides with the same gun) that leaves 269,990,854 guns which were not involved in homicides.

Given the fact that gun ownership is increasing, and gun homicide rates per unit of population are decreasing, can we infer any relationship between the two? Is it possible that these numbers of guns above the ones being used for crime are being kept by law-abiding people? Perhaps the correlation is that murders are decreasing because some potential victims are defending themselves, and because would-be murderers are thinking twice before committing crime.

Which gets back to my counterpoint. If we were to remove all guns from society, there would still exist those persons who are willing and motivated to kill. And those persons would use whatever weapons were available to do so.

Likely, the murder rate would increase, since the ability for the rest of us to defend ourselves has been reduced.

In fact, the picture is even more grim, because, honestly, there is no way to confiscate all the guns from society. Even so-called gun-free societies like Britain and Japan continue to see criminals with guns. After all, if a criminal is willing to break the law in one way – drugs, robbery, prostitution – would they not be willing to break the law by owning a gun?

That brings us back around to the original comment, that this phrase is “[p]robably the most ignorant ass hat backwards slogan/statement ever!” I have to admit, I agree to a point. It’s been taken to the point where it’s become a hackneyed phrase, and it’s obviously lost its meaning on the population in general.

So, I leave you with a task: come up with a phrase to replace “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

I’ll start.