Welcome to govwatcher.org. The home of "THE NONPROFIT GOVERNMENT WATCHDOG ADVISORY TRUST" a nonprofit foundation.
Finally a common sense approach to government.
Like the abortion issue, most people have already formed an opinion concerning the issue of gun control creating two very polarized camps of those for and against private gun ownership. I want to make my views very clear on this issue, to me; gun control means hitting your target dead center every time you fire your weapon. What? That is not what you think of when you hear the term gun control? Well you are not alone. While the media would have you believe that the whole country is in favor of outlawing all types of guns and limiting gun ownership to law enforcement and military personnel, this is not what the constitution of the United States, of which I am a citizen, had in mind when penned over 200 years ago. Looking closely at what was happening in the lives of our founding fathers at the time when the U.S. Constitution was written, we can get a better understanding of what might have been going through the minds of our founding fathers when drafting and signing the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We must remember that at this time in history the United States had just been formed. The founders of the U.S. Constitution had the foresight to allow a process for modifying the original document; this process of modifying the Constitution is known as Amendment. The First Amendment was written in order to guaranty the people’s rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech; this was the primary reason this country was colonized in the first place. The Second Amendment, which was also very much of a concern of those that fought for the freedom for the U.S. from the oppressive British government, guaranteed the right to bear arms. In 1775 then British General Gage by order of King George, who claimed governmental rule over the American colonies, declared martial law; Gage went from house to house in Boston confiscating private weapons in order to eliminate the threat to British forces. If it were not for the heroic efforts of the citizens of the American colonies who resisted the British troops, the U.S. might still be under British control. With the American Revolutionary War fresh in the minds of our founding fathers, with pen in hand, they drafted a simple but eloquent Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "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." The use of the word militia here has been the subject of many discussions about the original intent of this Amendment. There are those who say that this refers only to the Military and National Guard, while others infer that this means that every U.S. Citizen has the right to carry a weapon anywhere that he/she wishes. The Supreme Court has done little to settle the continuing debate over this important issue. In Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Court held that "all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve militia of the United States," which some would see as upholding a prohibition of state interference with private gun ownership. In United States v. Miller (1939), however, the Court upheld a law prohibiting private ownership of a sawed-off shotgun, although the grounds for the decision were narrow. With the gun control debate still unresolved, it might be helpful to examine what some of the founding fathers had to say about U.S. citizens and their guns:
Other Quotable Americans:
The intent of the founding fathers is clear; the Second Amendment was drafted in order to allow all law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms. To further justify this statement lets look at the wording of the Amendment in closer detail. "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." The first part of the Amendment "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" appears to be somewhat of a preamble to the actual right being recognized in the second part of the Amendment. In other words, the founders recognized that a well-regulated militia could not be maintained unless average citizens were armed, and that a well-regulated militia is essential to maintaining our civil liberties. The second part of this Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" goes on to recognize, not to grant, the right of the average citizen to own and bear arms. This right cannot not be infringed or abridged. According to Professor Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American (english language) Usage and Style, the Second Amendment guarantees the right of every law abiding citizen of the United States to own and bear arms without limitation or restriction. He further indicates that if the Second Amendment were written today it would read, "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." To read Professor Copperud's complete comments go to http://www.2asisters.org/unabridged.htm. Let’s take another look at the Second Amendment, this time focusing solely on the word militia. What exactly does this word mean, and where is all the controversy coming from? Today, the most common meaning for the word militia as stated by Webster's Unabridged Dictionary is:
Now that we have analyzed the Second Amendment, we can hopefully see that the intent of the Second Amendment was not specifically granting a well organized militia the right to bear arms but instead to grant every law abiding citizen the right to bear arms. There are those among us that say that the Second Amendment is old fashioned and out of step with today's forward thinkers. Others would have us believe that we must restrict gun ownership, as the public at large is unable to responsibly own guns without putting our civilization in grave danger from the misuse of these deadly weapons. To these people I say, balderdash! If the public at large cannot be trusted with the security of our nation, then we the U.S. Citizens will be at risk of losing all of our civil liberties, including the right to bear arms.
With the radical liberals controlling the mainstream media, most of the stories that we hear today are about how guns are being misused. Seldom do they ever report on how the mere presence of a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen deterred a crime from occurring or caused a criminal to flee the scene of a crime without his booty in tow. Armed citizens are standing up for their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by brandishing a gun in their own defense or the defense of those around them. Why is it that the media does not cover these stories with the same zeal that they cover the stories of criminals succeeding in their efforts to harm the public? For the purpose of ratings, sensationalism has lead to the policy: if it bleeds, it leads. Ultimately, the mainstream media are hypocritical because they never air the stories that compete with their views of gun control. They fear that if the public knew the truth about guns, there view of gun control would be perceived as erroneous. So how do we get to the truth? The answer is all around us; all we have to do is look closely at scientifically established statistics and not those perpetuated by the anti-gun crowd, since the anti-gun crowd deceptively misuses the available data by using only a subset of available data thereby supporting their views.
As you can see these statistics do not support the claims of the anti-gun groups. A few years ago people became very concerned about what the media was claiming was an epidemic of military style guns being used by criminals. According to the media it was at epidemic proportions, not the 2% supported by the facts. U.S. Murder Rate Since 1900
Interesting to note that from 1919 to 1937 murder was at levels that were similar to those from 1968 through 1997 in that these periods had murder rates exceeding 7%. It is also interesting that these periods coincide with the prohibition of alcohol (national prohibition of alcohol 1920-33) and drugs (drug popularity in the United States rising to current epidemic proportions beginning around 1965 with its apex around 1990). The public desire for an illegal substance appears to promote the existence of a gangster element supported by the lusts of the public. With the end of alcohol prohibition in 1933, it only took a few short years (33-37) for the murder rate to drop significantly. More recently, we have seen a drop in the murder rate however; this seems more attributable to rise of the economy rather than anything else. The preceding statistics do not support the claims of the anti-gun
crowd, but instead show that the problem of illegal gun use is not
as bad as the anti-gunners would have you think. They do not take into account the number of crimes that were averted by the known presence of a firearm, nor by an armed citizen scaring a criminal in the act of committing a crime by brandishing a firearm, or even the number of criminals that are injured each year when shot in the commission of a crime. According to FBI crime statistics, armed citizens prevent over 78,000 crimes each year. This number only accounts for those incidents that were reported to law enforcement. I know of myself, when an intruder came through a window in an adjacent bedroom and was subsequently chased off at gunpoint, my police report left out the part about having a gun involved. Since there were no shots fired, I felt the information would put me at risk of police scrutiny, and while I had nothing to hide, I lived in a state with restrictive gun laws and felt it better to keep a low profile for that reason. Most people possessing common sense would behave likewise. The NRA estimates the number of crimes averted is closer to 2.1 million per year. Needless to say, most attempted crimes go either unreported, or in this case under reported. This coupled with the fact that of the 43 family related deaths, 22 were suicides. (It is interesting to note that the number of suicides is not affected by having a gun in the house; in fact, statistics show that there are slightly fewer suicides in households where guns are legally owned versus those where no gun is owned). The annual number of owner related injuries and deaths used in the study to support the 43 times numbers is 389 home related deaths to 9 justifiable homicides giving us a ratio of 43 to 1. Using these same numbers combined with our updated information, the statistics turn completely around with the family gun being 200 times more likely to protect its owner and family than to harm them or a ratio of 200 to 1. The 200 number uses only the reported number of 78,000, not the estimated 2.1 million number. Accidental Deaths in the U.S. for 1998
Reflecting on these numbers, perhaps we should outlaw cars and ladders. Or, perhaps we should arrest people for almost drowning or choking.
There are those that would have you believe that by eliminating all guns from our citizens that crime would cease. That somehow magically all the criminals would loose there weapons and our streets would be safe again, how naive can you be. Do they really expect criminals to turn in their illegal weapons? What these people fail to acknowledge is that crime has been around since Adam bit the forbidden fruit. The first murder was committed with a branch when Cain brutally bludgeoned Able to death and then hid his body so as not to be detected. Ever since then, man has been committing crimes with whatever weapon he can fashion using any available materials conceivable. Expecting our criminals to give up their weapons simply because a new law is passed is absurd.
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | About Us | News | Articles | Get Involved | Support | Services | FAQs | Login | Shop
482 West Hamilton Ave, Suite 347
Campbell, CA 95008
