Posted on 09/08/2003 12:43:46 PM PDT by 45Auto
Do you want to drive a member of the anti-gun crowd into histrionics worthy of an Oscar? Tell him or her that you think all gun laws should be abolished and ownership should be based on Constitutional Law. As he starts to choke on his granola bar, tell him that everyone except felons, potential terrorists, and the mentally challenged (i.e., voluntary human shields, socialists, anyone who thinks Ralph Nadar would be a good president) should be required to carry a concealed weapon. Then, if your constitutionally impaired friend can still speak, tell him the only screening that should happen at the airport is a fingerprint check; if you’re not wanted by the FBI or in violation of immigration laws, the only question the security screener should ask is if you have an extra clip in your carry-on.
He will probably say or imply that, “people in a civilized society don’t need guns." Offer “Herr Unarmed” if he would like some Bratwurst with that whine and tell him that is almost exactly what Hitler said when guns were outlawed in Germany in 1935. Point out to your confused friend that unlike Nazi Germany laws, our Bill of Rights allows, if not encourages, us to keep and bear arms. If he counters with the common sophistry of, “but that’s just for a militia, and you’re not in the military," you may have to get ugly. According to Webster, an organized militia is the US military; an unorganized militia is anyone else.
The founders of our country wrote The Bill of Rights, including the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, because they believed the Constitution needed to be stronger in its defense of an individual’s rights. Our founders are the same men who, in the Declaration of Independence, said the government exists only through the consent of the governed, i.e. us. They were not taking any chances with some pernicious government committing egregious violations of our liberties. They knew, as many today seem to have forgotten, unless you can defend your rights, you really do not have them. The founders specifically worded the 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.” Unmistakably, it is “the right of the people,” not just military members, to possess a firearm. All citizens have not only the right, but also the duty, to defend himself or herself against any oppressor, be it a punk violating your private property, or a corrupt regime violating your civil liberties.
The final sophistic argument your anti-gun friend will resort to, is that your fanatical plan would lead to anarchy and shootings in the street. Simply smile and say Kennesaw. This sleepy little suburb of Atlanta has seen its population grow from 5,200 in 1981 to over 20,000 in 2001. Yet it’s crime rate has decreased every year since 1982. What sets Kennesaw apart? It is the only community in the country where the homeowner is lawfully required to own a firearm. I will not bore you with all the statistics (especially since they are easily available by Googling “Kennesaw Crime Statistics”)—but I will share this: Kennesaw’s crime rate dropped 72% during the first ten-year period (1982-1992) of mandatory ownership. Currently, Kennesaw’s property crime rate is less than one per 1,000 residents; and there has not been murder or rape in the city since 1986. Nor has there been a case of domestic abuse, and no child has been injured by a gun during that same period. Hardly the old-west environment the anti-gun crowd wants you to believe would occur if all law-abiding citizens had guns. Kennesaw’s law has enough exemptions (including the aforementioned felons and mentally challenged individuals) to allow someone to opt out of ownership; and it’s doubtful the city would ever prosecute someone under the statute,
Ironically, the cites with the strictest gun laws, New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Detroit, account for 20 percent of all homicides in the United States. Obviously, Kennesaw is not in the same realm as those cities, but as microcosm of the greater whole, one has to wonder, if those cities had the same laws would crime decrease? Perhaps the question should be, if you were a criminal and had your choice between robbing someone who was not armed and someone who might be armed, all other things being equal, whom would you choose to rob?
I seem to recall reading, a few days ago, on FR that until some act was passed in 1938(?) that ex-felons could possess guns. Do I remember correctly?
Actually, Detroit has the same gun laws as Michigan as a whole. Better than some states(Shall issue since 2001), worse than others(pistol registration)
I need to refresh my memory, but I think Germany registered them in 1929 under the Wiemar Republic. Hitler I think passed his law in 1938.(???)
Yes, before 1968 you could order guns and ammunition out of the Sears, Wards, or Penny's catalog and have it delivered to your door. You did have to be 18, but I don't know if that was the law, or just the policy of the companies. Of course the dratted thing was passed just months before I turned 18!. Of course for a while, before it became politically incorrect to do so, you could still buy guns from their catalogs, but you had to go to a retail store to pick them up. That wasn't too much of a burden, as at least the first two, and Penny's didn't offer much in the way of guns anyway, maintained small catalog stores in many smaller places without enough market to support a full blown store. Mainly they were there to allow for purchase of items such as large household appliances, law mowers, and such as that. Many hardware stores sold guns and/or ammunition as well. There was a chain of stores, sort a cross between a modern 7-11 type stop and rob and a general store, Holiday Stores(they still exist but are now just 7-11 clones for the most part), that not only sold guns and ammunition, they had their own house brand of ammo, at least for shotguns. I've still got a partial box of 20 gauge somewhere or other, I think, and I know there's at least one such box at my parents house as well. Wards and Sears had their own brands of guns and ammunition as well. Western Field and J.C. Higgens respectively. I carried a 20 ga JC Higgens (actually a Hi-Standard) until the mid 80s.
Which is a good point. The mental health exceptions put forth are somewhat bothersome to me. While I dont particularly want some sort of violent maniac running around with a gun, the mental health exceptions put forth are always rather vague. Ive said many times in the past that this could be a real problem if not properly defined and was generally considered to be loony for even suggesting that great care has to be taken in specifying the restricted individuals.
Some may not be chuckling much longer. In the recent past Ive seen articles claiming or suggesting that those interested in having weaponry and exercising a right to it had something wrong with them. One particular item I find disturbing is that in the last couple of days Ive become aware of a situation where WAVE (Wisconsin Anti Violence Effort), a disinformationist anti rights group, has sent action alerts to the Mental Health Association in Milwaukee. MHA then added some hysterical diatribe to the alert and forwarded it to employees of a county government, to their government email addresses, to proselytize support in stopping our attempt at passing CCW
Presently the WAVE/MHA cabal claims its a mental health issue because CCW will increase the number of suicides. What happens when some Harvard snake oil salesman psychiatry professor comes forward with a "study" claiming everyone who wants to exercise their right to self defense is a paranoid with a penchant for violence and then this activist to government connection kicks in?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.