Back to top

The Second Amendment

As Justice Scalia has noted, "It would be strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated 'Militia.'" Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law 3, 42-43 (Princeton Univ. Press; Princeton, N.J.; 1997).

Since many seem to endorse firearms registration, there is a Supreme Court decision there which should be noted, Haynes, USSC. 1968. In that case the Court held that criminals could not be required to register firearms as that would violate their rights under the Fifth Amendment. Any such law, anywhere in the United States, applies only to lawful gun owners according to the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Easy to obtain guns ended in the mid 60's, prior to that you could even get them by mail order. Of course, back then there wasn't nearly so much crime.

I wonder if there is any relationship there--guns easy to get and low violent crime rates, versus guns hard to get and high violent crime rates...

Borrowed Opinion

The following is a portion of the column of Col. Jeff Cooper, USMC (ret.) from the March 2000 issue of “Guns and Ammo”:

This British outfit that puts out such publications as Jane’s Fighting Vehicles and Jane’s Fighting Ships has now come up with a new volume listing what purports to be “terrorist” organizations, and includes Gun Owners of America and the Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in this category…. As is well known, both GOA and Citizen’s Committee derive their principles from the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence. Thus we are putting up for listing the U.S. Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.…

Defining one’s terms becomes more and more complicated in the Age of Ignorance. There is a strong tendency at this time on the part of leftist organizations and governments to describe as ”terrorist” any group or act which they dislike. As I see it, a terrorist is one who murders people (or attempts to) in order to persuade political groups to change their ways. That is just one definition, of course.

”We learn that our current glorious leader is contemplating the construction of a library dedicated to his accomplishments. We suggest that Hugh Hefner contribute 100 full sets of Playboy magazine (since its inception) to the reading room of this establishment.

Who won’t trust armed people?

The answer to your question is, of course, various people who think of themselves as public spirited and concerned with making society as safe as possible. Unfortunately these people feel they live under a government and not under a Constitution. They feel government can give and remove rights at its whim. These people don't understand how our system of government was designed to work any more than they understand human nature. (Many of these people watched "Bambi" to gain a full understanding of how an eco-system functions.) These are people to whom the statement, "I'm from the government, I'm here to help you." makes perfect sense.

These people often consider themselves "patriots" of one sort or another, after all, they are loyal to the government, especially if the government is working to void the Constitution and move further down the road of Fabian Socialism.

Patriotism in America is loyalty and allegiance only to the Constitution, not at all to the government. There may again come a time when the two are one and the same, but to get to that point we must rewrite the Constitution or put the government back on its leash. I prefer a government of, by, and for the people; rather than a people of, by and for the government. Needless to say I'm looking into the leash market, this fall may present some good opportunities.

You asked, "What kind of government won't trust its citizens to be armed?" A better question might be, "What kind of government can trust its citizens?" The answer is, "One which obeys the Constitution which created it, and follows the wishes of the majority of the citizenry while protecting the rights of the minority who disagree.

We've been living under a government controlled in whole or in part by liberals (socialists, not classic liberals) for over 65 years. During that time the Constitution has taken a beating. Look at what it has gotten us. We have children shooting children while we are expected to blame the tool. We have public officials lying under oath and we're told it isn't really serious; that it's the fault of the investigators. Liberals have forbidden prayer in schools as a divisive issue (The First Amendment--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."[Emphasis mine]). Has this made the country a better safer place?

Modern liberal (socialist) politics is the politics of hatred. The population must be divided into groups and the groups turned against each other. Government can then demand additional authority (unconstitutional authority) to resolve the problems it originally generated.

What we're doing now doesn't work--its time to go back to the basics, the government on a leash and the people free.