Gun Control–Demystified

As expected, in the wake of the tragic Sandy Hook shooting, the gun-grabbers have reared their heads once again.  So far, they have made only limited progress. No doubt, gun control posturing provides feckless politicians with a means of distracting the public from the pressing issues of the day …But, it also enables us to see inside the matrix, as the notion of “gun control” is at the nexus of several poorly understood and even deliberately distorted precepts of American life.

To start, the term “gun control” is itself misleading. “Control” can be defined as “the power or authority to guide or manage.” However, what is intended here is some means of regulating the use and availability of firearms, whereas “control” of a gun is directly in the hands of the person using it. Consider that there are hundreds of regulations applying to the manufacture, distribution, and sales of automobiles, but no one ever speaks of “car control.”

The term “gun control” has been invoked since the existing and proposed regulations are limiting a fundamental constitutional right. Our government may refer to codes of speech, and it may create Orwellian definitions of freedom of religion, but it will never speak of regulating the press or regulating religion.

The framers of the Constitution included the Bill of Rights to prevent government from impeding these and other rights, which they believed were fundamental and part of the Natural Law (God-given, if you will). Moreover, the Natural Law always trumps civil law. A prime example being that the Natural Law right of self-defense will trump civil laws against battery or homicide.

It must be emphasized that government cannot create or grant rights, but can only restrict or remove them entirely. While many believe that the government freed the slaves, this is a perversion of reality. Rather, the government enslaved them in the first place, codifying slavery, and protecting the slave trade until January 1, 1808, via Article I, Section 9. Manumission, via the 13th amendment, was merely the government restoring a fundamental right that it had earlier taken away.

All gun control proposals include long lists of firearms that the government will still let you keep, as if they had the right to prohibit any of them in the first place.

The next widely distorted precept is the role of the police. Despite the omnipresent “To protect and serve” designations emblazoned on most marked police vehicles, courts at all levels have consistently held that the police have no duty to protect individuals. In another slogan that could have come straight out of George Orwell, the so-called “Public Duty” doctrine states that the police owe a duty to protect the public in general, but not to protect any particular individual.

Presumably, by solving rather than preventing crimes, the public portion of the duty is fulfilled.

In Warren v. District of Columbia, the DC Court of Appeals ruled against Carolyn Warren, even though the aid promised via her 911 call never arrived, the overall conduct of the police was astonishingly incompetent, and she and her roommate were brutalized for 14 hours.

In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the US Supreme Court ruled against Jessica Gonzales, who claimed that the failure of the Castle Rock, CO police to enforce a restraining order led to the murder of her three children by her estranged husband. She had contacted the police five times on the day of the homicides, pleading for help.

In Ford v. Town of Grafton, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts ruled against Catherine M. Ford, whose protective order against her estranged husband offered no real protection. Indeed, she was advised by the police to procure a gun, but failed to do so. Her former spouse continued to threaten and assault her, leading to her being shot three times and subsequently paralyzed for life.

In Riss v. New York, the Court of Appeals of New York ruled against Linda Riss, who begged for police protection from a former suitor’s violent threats. After all, she was unable to arm herself in New York City at the time. The police failed to prevent an attack in which lye was poured on her face, rendering her blind in one eye, with limited vision in the other. As was pointed out at the time, “By a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.”

There are many more such cases, some of which even have police on the scene, still failing to act.

Finally, we have the notion of self-defense, in which the question posed is “Why would anyone need a gun or magazine like that?” The implication being that only police and military (and I guess criminals) should be allowed to have such firearms. The first answer is that the purpose of these weapons IS self-defense, whether used by a civilian, a police officer, or the military. Why is their claim to self-defense more valid than yours, especially since they have no legal duty to protect you?

Moreover, prohibitions of this sort inevitably lead to further restrictions. Gun control advocates were able to trip up many hapless defenders of gun rights, in the wake of Sandy Hook, when asked if they support the government’s 1934 ban on fully-automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns being in civilian hands. A “yes” answer led to the obvious follow-up: Then why would you object to banning the “killing machine” of a 100-round magazine? Slippery slope, anyone?

It’s quite simple: The police have no duty to protect you; criminal offenders will not disarm, nor tone down their weapons; yet the government still wants to disarm you. Why? So, you will be more dependent on the government, and they will have yet more control over your life. Never mind that they have no duty to actually protect you.

Under such rubrics, and in response to the perceived public concern over rising crime rates, who knows how Draconian it might get? The government might even restrict or suspend certain constitutional rights. Oh wait, they already have.

About these ads

9 responses to “Gun Control–Demystified

  1. Yet Obama likes to go around informing everyone, including criminals and deranged people, that the only place to go unchallenged on a gun spree are the gun free school zones. Undefended gun free zones only exist at schools, all or most other gun free zones normally have armed security or police protecting such places. Deranged persons are assured that teachers are unable to defend the children.

    Obama & the Dumbocrats are directing potential offenders to schools as sacrificial hunting grounds, in the hope of using a massacre to ramp home their agenda, to take guns away from innocent people.

    If a mad person takes out a gun in an airport they will likely be surrounded and shot/apprehended by armed officials within 30 seconds.

    Yet when the same deranged person takes out a gun in a school, where the most precious of our society are based a daily basis, that same person knows they have probably a good 30 minutes before anyone dare apprehend them.

    It’s a scandal, apart from lining up the kids in a line, there is nothing else Dumbocrats can do to assist such deranged criminals.

  2. It has been said that really effective gun control means putting 10 rounds into the 10-ring.

    Anyhow, there’s something else about gun control. The Bill of Rights of the US Constitution presents a radical vision of the rights of the individual with respect to the power of government. No other government, anywhere on the planet, gives such primacy to individual rights.

    These individual rights, ultimately, are guaranteed by the Second Amendment. A gun gives the individual the power of life and death, and the lawful use of that power, by both individuals and governments, is utterly fundamental. If that power fails, everything else fails.

    Statists and those who believe ‘collective’ rights are more important than individual rights must, above all else, abhor gun ownership by civilians. Their animus against individualism *must* be directed against the its foundation and highest expression — the Second Amendment.

    Viewed this way, it is no accident that guns are symbols, for both the Right and the Left. Symbols of the role of the individual in political power. And you know what? We should by grateful that guns are symbols. If they’re ever actually needed in defense of the Bill of Rights, they won’t be symbols anymore. Let’s not have that.

    • Speaking of gun control, my son and I shot 5 clean stages apiece on Saturday in Cowboy Action Shooting. Our first clean matches and we did it on the same day! Gun control is good sight picture + trigger squeeze.

  3. I agree! They have no rights to take any of our guns. That’s a freedom we have and they are acting like we get to keep that freedom when they say we can keep only ‘certain’ guns! It just makes me sick what they are doing.

  4. Brilliant Steve. That from a Brit who has the most draconian laws against the private ownership of the means of production, sorry, guns in the world. Just to let you know where we are going

  5. SomeoneWhoCares

    This is so unbelievable. I can’t comprehend how someone could actually believe this. I see you are giving real evidence of exact legal technicalities that exist, but to actually presume that the intention of the president and other gun control advocates is to create more government dependency is ridiculous. I want a safer country. If I am a sane person who is not a criminal in this nation than I believe it is fine to buy a gun. Whether for my own self defense or for hunting etc. I do not wish to restrict the rights of the people of the United States. But it was never a right to have so many guns with so much power that can shoot hundreds of rounds in a matter of seconds. These guns are made as mass killing machines. If I need to defend myself I do not need a gun of this velocity, I highly doubt I will ever need to kill that many people. Many gun injuries and/or deaths are even accidents or out acts out of rage that people without the proper knowledge preform. Just because criminals may be able to access guns in other places illegally, it does not mean we should make it easier for them to get one legally. And when people plead the second amendment, many do not realize the true meaning which allows people to bear arms as a militia, if the government became tyrannical like it was before the revolutionary war. While this is an important right, it is a little outdated. I have a lot more to say on this issue, but I’ll stop there. Hopefully people will be able to see my true intentions as I simply care about the safety of our people.

  6. @Someone–

    If you can cite a single instance in American history whereby promoting a “safer country” was not actually a cover for a government power grab—I’m all ears. Really.

    This is based on more than 30 years of dealing with government agencies, as well as a fairly extensive knowledge of American history.

    BTW–All your arguments regarding “Why does one need a gun like that?” could just as easily be applied to cars—which kill way more people.

  7. SomeoneWhoCares

    @ Michael
    Seriously with the car argument?
    People purposefully use guns to kill on a daily bases. That is what they are made for. Cars are made for driving. I’m not suggesting that we get rid of guns. I’m just suggesting we should simply license them and make people pass a test before they can use them—like we already do with cars. Just expanding background checks to places to as simple as gun shows and online is not taking the power away from the people. It is just keeping guns in the right hands.

    • @Someone–

      Pejorative a bit? Guns are made for self-defense. Cars are made for transportation. Both can…and do kill.

      The problem with “simply license them…” (which we already do) is that this is just the beginning of the big power grab.

      Further to my earlier challenge, please name one regulation in the history of this country that started off small—and stayed small. The sad fact is that government regulation never works…EVER. There is not one single solitary example of success in this area that can be cited.

      While the EPA and FDA are currently the worst offenders, there are hundreds more almost as bad.

      “The right hands” Oh dear God. We will just let the government decide. Please tell me you don’t really believe that would be a good idea.

      BTW–Most major gun shows already have background checks in place.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s