The Misunderstood Radical Right: Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment

Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment

by Cindy Peak

We might as well start off with a topic that is currently in the news:  gun control. 

Amendment II:  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.

What We Believe

The Radical Right believes that citizens have the right of self-defense and that includes (especially) the ability to defend themselves from tyranny by their Government.  This right includes the ability of citizens to have, own, and carry weapons.

The Radical Right believes that the Government is currently seeking to infringe upon this right through gun control legislation.

History

Our Founders were facing an oppressive British Government; they did not want to create another government that was similarly inclined.  Yet they realized the tendency for any power, no matter how limited, to corrupt.  James Madison, in The Federalist No. 51 said:  “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.  If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.  In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this:  you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.  A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

One of those auxiliary precautions was the 2nd amendment:  having citizens armed to enable them to defend themselves from a corrupt government would give those in power pause to consider their limitations.   Contrary to what many argue today, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, although that is a benefit.  Nor is it about target practice, gun collecting, or even self-defense from criminals, although these, too are benefits.  It is about self-defense from the Government.  It is to keep those power-hungry politicians beholden to “We the People” not special interest groups, other governments, or self-serving, tyrant-minded wanna-bes. 

Upon what do I base this strong position?  George Mason, co-author of the second Amendment, said the following during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788:  "I ask, Sir, what is the militia?  It is the whole people.  To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."  The Founders did not want to be enslaved ever again; not their generation, nor for
future generations.

So, I hope we can agree on why the 2nd Amendment is in our Constitution.  This is history, plain and simple. 

Issue Today:  Mass Murder

Fast forward to today.  Any murder is tragic; mass murders exponentially compound the tragedy, and especially when the violence is aimed at children.  There is no excuse.  Another point upon which I hope we can all agree.

Mass murders have been used as a reason to impose gun control through law.  But this approach doesn’t work for a number of reasons.

1.       Gun Control Laws Punish the Wrong People

Unless one is acting in self-defense, a person who kills another person is a murderer, and since murder is a crime, the murderer is a criminal.  Criminals by definition do not obey laws.  Therefore, why in the name of all that is good, do some people believe that putting more laws on the books will do anything to improve our society?  Even Vice President Joe Biden, during meetings of the White House gun violence task force, admits the existing laws cannot be enforced because the Obama Administration simply does not have the time to run all the background checks or otherwise enforce the laws.  (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/18/biden-we-need-more-gun-laws-because-we-dont-have-time-to-enforce-the-ones-we-have/)

The people who are doing the killing are not going to be deterred by a gun law!  They don’t care about the law.  These people are either criminals who are living outside the law already, and don’t obey laws, in which case another law is not going to matter to them.  Or they are people who have decided to start living outside the law, and are not obeying the laws, in which case another law is not going to deter them.  Or they are people who have mental disabilities that render them incapable of following or oblivious to the laws, in which case another law is not going to heal them. 

Meanwhile, the people who will obey the laws are the ones already obeying the laws, so there is no change in the outcome and no improvement to society --- except for the fact that now law-abiding citizens have now become less free.

2.       Gun Control Laws Already Exist (and They Don’t Work)

Have you noticed that many of the scenes of mass murders are in areas that are called “gun-free zones”?  Allow me to quote from another article that addresses this very issue (I apologize for the length of this, but it is packed with information pertinent to this very point):   (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund)

Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. “Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances — from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. — where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.

Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.

I spoke with Lott after the Newtown shooting, and he confirmed that nothing has changed to alter his findings. He noted that the Aurora shooter, who killed twelve people earlier this year, had a choice of seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie he was obsessed with. All were within a 20-minute drive of his home. The Cinemark Theater the killer ultimately chose wasn’t the closest, but it was the only one that posted signs saying it banned concealed handguns carried by law-abiding individuals. All of the other theaters allowed the approximately 4 percent of Colorado adults who have a concealed-handgun permit to enter with their weapons.

“Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks,” Lott told me. “A couple hundred people were in the Cinemark Theater when the killer arrived. There is an extremely high probability that one or more of them would have had a legal concealed handgun with him if they had not been banned.”

Lott offers a final damning statistic: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.” [Emphasis mine]

Of course we know it isn’t only more gun-free zones that new legislation is trying to bring about, but restrictions on the types of weapons and size of magazines used for ammunition.  But we get back to the same point made above:  if a person is going to kill someone, which is already illegal, breaking another law to have an “oversized” magazine or a gun that “looks dangerous” isn’t going to stop him.  This is like Mayor Bloomburg saying that outlawing Big Gulps will stop people from drinking too much soda.  If someone is intent on drinking too much
soda, they’ll just refill or buy another one!

But you say, it might slow the killer down and enable someone else to stop him?  Really?  Only two things are going to stop a mad-man with a gun from shooting: a law-abiding citizen with a gun or running out of ammunition – which has more to do with how much ammo he brought with him than whether he packaged that ammo in 10, 20, or 30 shot increments.  

Laws don’t work on criminals.  If they did, there would be no crime!  Laws are there to prosecute the criminals, not protect victims. 

Let’s just look at the Newtown, CT situation.  Connecticut gun laws (existing at the time of this mass shooting) are among the strictest in the nation.  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/17/connecticut-gun-laws-among-the-nations-strictest/)  Additional background checks would not
have helped.  Adam Lanza stole the weapons from his mother.  Stealing is against
the law.  And he circumvented the background checks, so more checks would not have stopped Lanza.  He broke the law.  The major part of the shooting (all except his mother) was done in a gun-free zone.   That didn’t stop Lanza; he broke the law.  According to Connecticut law, to carry a hand gun one must be 21.  Lanza was 20; he broke the law.  And also according to Connecticut
law, a permit to carry is required.  Lanza didn’t have one; he broke the law.  (http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/gun-control-laws-failed-connecticut-children/)

I think it is fair to say that none of the laws on the book, nor the ones being proposed today, would have stopped Adam Lanza from his mission.  He was hell-bent on a mission to kill.  And he did so regardless of the laws that said he should not.   

3.       Gun Control Doesn’t Address the Root Problem

The major root problem is sin, or the politically correct version of that, evil.  There is evil in this world and laws do not stop evil from happening.  We can lock
the evil person up after the evil has been committed, but only if we enforce the laws.  Don’t forget that Joe Biden said we don’t have the time or the resources to enforce the laws we have now.  As we’ve recently found out through the Sequestration, when the money is limited, even the ones we do incarcerate, the
ones who have perpetrated evil, can be released without that propensity to do evil
being transformed into a propensity to do good. 
(http://weaselzippers.us/2013/03/16/more-than-a-third-of-illegal-immigrant-detainees-released-by-feds-in-arizona-over-sequester-cuts-were-convicted-criminals/)

Gun control doesn’t stop evil.  If it did, gun-free zones would work. Laws against assault weapons would work.  (True assault weapons have been “heavily taxed, highly regulated and registered with the federal government” by the
National Firearms Act of 1934. (http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/10/25/the-real-history-of-the-assault-weapons-ban/#ixzz2Nu40blHs)) 

What works for sin is God.  (And that is a subject of another article; not here.)

As mentioned earlier, there is another root problem that is not being addressed by legislation:  mental disorders.  Grant Duwe of the Washington Times reported:  “More than half of the killers in mass shootings over the past century were beset by serious mental illness (most often severe depression or paranoid schizophrenia), a rate that’s at least five times higher than that estimated for the general population.”  (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/3/seven-mass-shootings-in-2012-most-since-1999-recog/#ixzz2NuxJEeQ8)

More than half, more than 50% is significant, and worth considering.  But are we?  It doesn’t appear to be the case.  What do we do about the mentally ill in this country?  How can we identify those who are likely to be violent?  How do we treat them?  Is there any truth to the concerns about the violent side effects of drugs being used to treat their symptoms if they are under medical care? Shouldn’t we at least consider this?  The Radical Right believes we should. 

4.       Gun Control Doesn’t Make Victims Safer

I read an unattributed quote on the internet recently:  “Gun control doesn’t work because it assumes that the opposite of ‘armed and dangerous’ is ‘unarmed and safe.’” Taking weapons away from a law-abiding citizen doesn’t do a thing to unarm the criminal or the mentally disturbed and violent person.  Those people aren’t deterred.  The result is a less safe society.  The law abiding citizens are not the problem.

5.       Gun Control Laws Violate the 2nd Amendment

I have recently become acquainted with the work of Bill Whittle, a conservative pundit.  He has done and is doing a series on “The Virtual President” where he speaks at the State of the Union and says the things he wishes a real President would say.  One of these short videos is on this very issue.  You can watch it here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T-F_zfoDqI.  It is worth the watch, and it succinctly states the position of the Right.

Conclusion

No one wants there to be mass murders.  Gun Control Laws do not stop mass murders, but they do infringe upon the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and make society less safe, not more.  Gun Control Laws are not the answer.

The Right isn’t so radical after all.