After the tragic Connecticut school shooting, every news media outlet covered gun control, with many journalists being anti-gun. Within several days, much of the media stopped having debates because they realized the gun-control position was logically indefensible. Here is why:
—Question: Why would any citizen need an “assault weapon” or 30-round magazines?
Answer: To fulfill the purpose of the Second Amendment – defense against tyranny. The Second Amendment is not a quick word about hunting in between nine other rights that limit government powers. The founders recognized man’s greed for power, and set up balance of power in the Constitution, between the three branches of the federal government, between the federal government and the states, and between government and the people via the Second Amendment. To deter tyranny, people must be able to balance governmental power, and single-shot or hunting rifles cannot do that. “Assault” is the name of a crime given to inanimate objects by those with an agenda to mislead and bias those who are uneducated about firearms, when they are talking about essentially all semi-automatic firearms, which are 90% of firearms in the United States.
—Question: How do we know this?
Answer: An interpretation that gives a law effect in fulfilling its purpose is always accepted over one that does not effect its purpose. The purpose of the Second Amendment is clear: “Necessary to the security of a “free” state”. A strong military is necessary to the security of any state, even a totalitarian state. However, a “free” state, requires a balance of power between citizens and government. While clear from the language alone and common sense, other writings from Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams, Hamilton and others support this definition.
—Question: How do we know they weren’t talking about the militia as the military?
Answer: Because the militia and military can be controlled by the government, and it would defeat the purpose, defense against a tyrannical government. Interpretations of law that give language effect are always more valid than those that have give language no purpose. The wisdom of the Second Amendment is to balance power by distributing the only real power amongst all the people, who have not had a chance to be corrupted by power like those in authority and government, and thereby making power fluid, instead of monopolized.
—Question: So should citizens own tanks, planes?
Answer: Nobody is talking about those – don’t distort our argument. We are only discussing semi-automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons are already banned. Semi-automatic rifles are absolutely necessary to fulfill the purpose of the Second Amendment, because its purpose cannot be fulfilled with bolt-action and single-shot rifles. Allowing the government to regulate the right until the only firearms “allowed” are incapable of achieving its purpose of defending against tyranny is antithetical to its purpose, and therefore void as unconstitutional. George Washington said in his State of the Union speech in 1790, ”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them…”
—Question: What if some believe we could never defeat the American military with those weapons anyway?
Answer: The argument that we may not succeed in protecting freedom, so therefore we should not even try, does not make sense. Many will always feel freedom is worth fighting for. Additionally, a hundred million patriotic, Constitution-loving gun owning citizens are a powerful deterrent to a would-be tyrant in control of a two million person army. The U.S. military could barely control Iraq.
—Question: What if we believe Tyranny cannot happen in the U.S.?
Answer: Greed has not been erased from the hearts of men. Dictatorships, genocides, world wars, holocausts and other horrors plague all of history. The rest of the world continues to have these problems, while the U.S. does not, and Americans repeatedly have to go bail out out the rest of the “civilized’ “unarmed” world every few years because of their genocides and dictatorships and killing. History is not magically over, but will repeat itself. Our American democratic institutions will all fall to armed soldiers, as institutions have in Nazi Germany, and all other places.
—Question: So the whole world should be armed?
Answer: Yes, and it would be a much better place. The Hutus would not have slaughtered 800,000 Tutsies in Rwanda if both were armed. Hitler could not have killed 6 million armed Jews, because the political cost of losing so many soldiers would have been so great, that the Holocaust could not have happened. In Syria, if the people had arms, they would have overthrown Assad already, and we would not have to worry about the blame from arming the wrong terrorist group. In Iran, if the people had arms, the 2009 election would not have been stolen by an armed minority, they could overthrow that minority, and they may not have a nuclear weapons program today. In Iraq, if the Iraqi people had the Second Amendment, the dictator Saddam might have been overthrown by their own people, and we would not have had to go to war there. In Mexico, if the people had arms, the drug cartels would not have a monopoly on power. The cartels aren’t powerful because they have guns, but because only they have guns. If they did not have this monopoly on power, citizens could start defending their own neighborhoods, the politicians wouldn’t only fear the cartels but the people also, power would balance, and the Mexican people would have their country back.
—Question: What about peaceful resistance like MLK or Ghandi?
Answer: It didn’t work during the holocaust – everyone who resisted was executed on site. That’s what mass graves are for. Even Gandi said, “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
—Question: So your answer is more guns (on the street/in schools)?
Answer: Don’t distort the argument – not more guns “on the street” or “in schools” but possessed by law-abiding trained citizens, doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, fireman, and other responsible members of society.
—Question: Why shouldn’t we ban guns?
Answer: Because then only the criminals, terrorists, dictators, tyrants, gang members, and drug dealers and rapists will have them all. Making guns illegal do not deter those whose primary activities are already illegal anyway. Guns only give such people a bigger advantage over their victims if they are unarmed. By making guns illegal, you are making effective self-defense illegal. You are making criminals out of law-abiding citizens who wish nothing more than to defend themselves, their families, and their free country. If you ban guns, you give people a self-preservation motive to commit crimes. If you do the opposite, and allow guns except when someone is a criminal, you give a self-presevation motive to NOT commit crimes.
—Question: How do you know there wont be less guns in bad guys’ hands?
Answer: Banning inanimate objects for which there is a criminal demand has never not work – look at the war on drugs. The bad guys throughout history have always had guns, and history will not magically change. The only thing you can do to have balance, and deterrent to crime, by letting the good guys have them also. There is safety with balance of power, and with a ban, by definition, only criminals will have them.
—Question: What about England where “gun murders” are much lower?
Answer: Their violent crime rate is much higher than ours, and their rate of “hot” burglaries (when the victim is home) is higher because burglars know the victims cannot defend themselves. The phrase “gun murders” hides those instances such as being nearly beaten to death in one’s own home, raped, and have all of one’s possessions taken or destroyed. England, after registering firearms, banned them, and now they have banned public protests, and there are suggestions that the media should be controlled. Such is the natural order of government increasing its power over people – gun rights must be the first to go.
—Question: Shouldn’t We at least try to do something?
Answer: While rampage shootings are highly publicized, and those stopped by armed citizens are not covered by the media, America still has very low crime. Gun bans didn’t work in Chicago, Detroit, Washington D.C., Mexico, in gun free zones, or during the holocaust. There is every indication that making guns illegal will only empower the criminals, terrorists, and tyrants who will have them by taking away the deterrence and balance of power of an armed society. We propose armed guards/teachers, education, and mental health system improvements. While America has 11,000 gun homicides per year, that is small compared to the 250,000,000 people who died from gun control-preceded genocide by their own governments committed just this past century.
—Question: Why not register and track all firearms?
Answer: Today, only law-abiding citizens can purchase them because of our background check system. Registration has preceded confiscation everywhere, and would dramatically change the Constitutional balance of power in favor of the federal government. Canada had a registration system, spent billions of dollars, and after years, not a single crime could be traced to a registered firearm, so they disbanded the system a complete failure and waste of money. Unless this government is bent on confiscation and dictatorship, it has a lot better things to spend money on than limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.
—Question: But doesn’t the Constitution allow for reasonable regulation?
Answer: The Constitution says, shall not be infringed. Once you allow infringement, it’s like the camel’s nose under the tent. Then the government wants to ban semi-autos, and then all guns, because after banning one firearm, all that needs to happen under this wrong logic, is for someone to commit a crime using a different, unbanned firearm. Even if “reasonable” regulation were allowed, giving a tool for confiscation to the government is contrary to the purpose of the Second Amendment.
—Question: Why not close the gun show loophole and require background checks in all cases?
Answer: The gun show loophole is actually the non-requirement for background checks when the person is not a dealer of firearms and only sells perhaps one firearm per year, for instance, to a friend, another person, or family member. Closing the gun show loophole would make every gun transaction contingent on federal government approval, which like other gun sales, it would simply deny if it ever became tyrannical.
—Question: Why not have stiff penalties for carrying guns near schools?
Answer: This only affects law-abiding citizens. No person who is about to commit mass murder cares about a law that bans coming within 1000 feet of a school. The only people this catches are law-abiding citizens, who have a license or lawful need to carry, because it is difficult to know where every school is, and many cannot get from home to work or the shooting range without passing within 1000 feet of a school, unknowingly.
—Question: Why not pass a law for mental health checks?
Answer: No gun owner wants insane people to have guns. Mentally unstable people already cannot purchase firearms under the law, when they are in a refusal database. The problem is, the mental health profession fails to report these people. There should be a system for reporting such people, and for these people to be determined fit or unfit by a neutral professional.
—Question: Why not have everyone go through a mental health check to decide who is worthy?
Answer: Because the people administering these, especially connected to the government or paid by the government, are likely to be so anti-gun, that they would label everyone who wants a firearm automatically paranoid and therefore not fit to have one. Sheriffs in most counties in California that have similar discretion in deciding whom to grant permits to based on who has good moral character, or good cause, have consistently granted permits to only those in government, contributors to their campaigns, the rich and famous, and denied them to everyone else. Every system that has such discretion has lended itself to abuse, and would result in stricter and stricter thresholds at each instance of violence until nearly nobody passes. The whole point of the Second Amendment is that government cannot decide and restrict, because the power exists to balance government.
—Question: Why not just pass some law with some reasonable-sounding restrictions?
Answer: Because the media will discuss 2-3 reasonable-sounding points, (same as with the 2000-page healthcare law) and meanwhile there will be many other restrictions which are not even discussed, which will subvert the Constitutional intent of the Second Amendment. Any law will have politically-biased language contrary to the Constitution such as, “the people have determined these weapons are dangerous and there is no legitimate hunting or sporting use for these weapons” misleading people and the courts about the true purpose of these weapons, defense against tyranny.
—Question: Why isn’t it ok to have a law that specifically exempts certain firearms from the ban?
Because the government will narrow the field from being able to have any weapon, to only one, two or three from a certain caliber. Many of the guns “allowed” are single shot hunting rifles, and such legislation lays the groundwork for the next wave of legislation the next time there is a shooting with one of these “allowed” weapons. It makes the few remaining manufacturers of these weapons targets of politicians, media, and the activist minority who do not understand the Constitution, who will organize boycotts and other protests designed to put the last remaining few manufacturers out of business. They will be demonized the same way the Bushmaster is demonized now, even though many congressmen, doctors, lawyers, and law-abiding citizens own them.
—Question: What do you say to people who want to ban guns anyway and do not believe any of this?
Answer: Let’s try it somewhere, and see if it works, before we do it to the whole country. We can try a total gun ban in Washington D.C., or Chicago, or Detroit, and see if crime increases or decreases. Let the states choose and follow what works, instead of forcing everyone to follow a potential system that may be logically flawed.
—Question: Isn’t it possible that liberals simply hate guns?
Answer: No, people hate guns because they are uneducated, uninformed, did not grow up with the culture, and do not have an understanding of history and human nature. The liberal anti-gun arguments are logically flawed. One cannot argue for women’s reproductive decision rights, and at the same time say a woman does not have the right to protect herself against rape. Deciding she cannot have a gun essentially says it is better that a woman is raped than a rapist be shot. Most people do not feel that way once exposed to the point.
If you have a counter-point, please post it, and I will respond with the correct argument. Unfortunately, much of the media have been preventing the discussion from getting to the truth. My question to the media is, why are you not covering these explanations?