Act Now Before a Valuable Constitutional Right is Lost
by The Liberator
For a long time now I have had the desire to write an article on this issue. Current events
finally pushed me to write it. There are several frivolous lawsuits, a charismatic new
President of The National Rifle Association (NRA)1, and a loss of personal responsibility in
the U.S. Other factors include constitutional concerns, data on crime in the U.S., and the
ramifications of instituting a gun control policy.
I am sure that the McDonald’s lawsuit is well known globally, considering the
international presence of the fast food chain. Judges, lawyers, reporters, and everyday
citizens like you and me are still trying to ascertain how a woman spilling a cup of hot
coffee on herself could actually be granted a settlement against a McDonald’s restaurant.
This woman claims that gun manufacturers are marketing their products to people who
commit crimes and therefore are liable for her son’s death. Gun manufacturers, she argues, are
making weapons that are fingerprint resistant, small and able to conceal, and hold a large
number of bullets. Those features in a gun make it very appealing to the criminal element.
In my mind, each and every one of those points is defendable. A fingerprint resistant finish
is less prone to oxidation and easier to grip. A small, concealable gun is useful for undercover law
enforcers, people who have concealed weapon permits, and citizens who want to protect
themselves from the possibility of crime. Guns which have a high capacity are no longer
specifically manufactured for the average citizen. Even though I have empathy for this
woman’s loss, I doubt that she has a legal leg to stand on.
The McDonald’s lawsuit and the lawsuit on certain gun manufacturers do have something
in common, besides being frivolous lawsuits. They attack a key facet of modern
society--personal responsibility--much like the early lawsuits against ladder companies
even though they were improperly used. If courts continue to remove personal
responsibility from the decision-making process, a clear message will be sent to American
citizens.
The message will be that it is okay not to be responsible. Court decisions will be virtually implying, "You are too stupid to know better John Q. Public; we’ll protect you." That is a
dangerous message, more dangerous than hot coffee and all of the guns ever made.
Maybe this message is partly the reason why a growing number of people refuse to take
responsibility for their actions. Our culture seems to be bent on taking personal
responsibility out of every fabric of our lives, including school and legal systems. It
appears to be a perverted, cyclical trend in desperate need of an end.
Many Americans shrug off England’s gun bans as a foreign phenomenon without much
importance here. But such complacence is the biggest danger we face. Because as you’ll
see, the strategy and tactics of that cultural war oversees are identical to the schemes of
American gun-grabbers here.4
At the beginning of this century, [England] had almost no gun-control laws or gun-related
crime. Yet today, armed crime there is more prevalent than in at least 200 years--100
times more prevalent than at the turn of this century.5
During an interview Mr. Heston said:
I’ll tell you why: Because Bill Clinton’s cultural warriors want a penitent cleansing of
firearms, as if millions of lawful gun owners should feel guilty for someone else’s crimes
and seek forgiveness by surrendering their guns.6
When asked, "What advice do you give to gun owners to win the cultural war being
waged today?" Mr. Heston replied:
Mr. Heston and the millions of Americans he represents, including myself, feel very
strongly about this issue. Their feelings are based not on raw emotion but on principles
that run deep in our culture.
Mr. Heston made reference to the Constitution8 multiple times. The part of the
Constitution that he is referring to is the 2nd Amendment, which is:
The anti-gun people would like to interpret that section to mean citizens have a right to arms through our armed forces. It is very clear, if you study it for yourself, the true meaning of that section is to have an armed militia and an armed citizenship. Such a blatant misinterpretation of the Constitution by the anti-gun movement scares me. If these people are willing to purposefully mis-read the Constitution, when the end result will be a loss of freedom for everyone, I have to ask: What other misdeeds are these people willing to do to further their own agenda?
Nevertheless, we should not be sidetracked from the true problem, the criminal. We all know there is a criminal element that preys off of the weak, unwitting, and ill-prepared. Criminals are becoming more desperate, more stupid, and therefore more dangerous.
There used to be a time when burglars had some degree of intelligence. They would case
a house to discover the best time to loot it--when the occupants were away. Now we
have to contend with a new type of criminal, the home invader. They will rob you
whether or not you are home and most definitely hurt you if you are home. On a similar scale,
we also have to contend with car-jackers. They are like home invaders but far more deliberate and bold.
In light of this modern criminal, many gun owners take an opposite view to
banning guns. They believe guns actually make life in the U.S. more safe, contrary to the
stand the biased media seems to invent. There are places in the U.S. where this theory is
being tested. The tests involve concealed weapon permits or right-to-carry laws.
Research indicates that cities which adopt these right-to-carry laws have a lower
incidence of crime. Florida is participating in that study. According to an ILA report:
Showing the deterrent effect that carry laws have on crime, Florida’s 10 largest cities all
reported decreases in robbery between 1987 and 1996. While the state’s robbery rate has
decreased 18.9%, the rate for the 10 cities as a group has decreased 19.1%. The single
largest decrease , 34.3%, is reported by Jacksonville, the state’s most populous
city.9
As Nazi Germany looked beyond its borders, neighboring countries fell like dominos.
However, not many people are aware there was a Polish resistance that did a decent job
keeping the Germans at bay. The resistance eventually was defeated due to an insufficient
amount of ammunition.
Could the U.S. government ever mutate into the government of Nazi Germany or
something equally horrible? Anything could happen when precautions are not taken.
Reflect on the McCarthy era as a small sample of unbridled power in the U.S. government.
Despite all of the over-reacting that ensues on behalf of anti-gunners, millions of
Americans use their weapons without harming anyone. In fact, when owners do use their
weapons in a defensive manner, their actions go unnoticed by the media. Store owners
guard themselves and their merchandise against robbers. Families defend themselves
against intruders. Women protect themselves against violent men.
I am sure you have not been informed that Bill Clinton’s Department of Justice conducted
a survey10 and came to the conclusion that guns are used far more often to defend against
crime than to perpetrate it. It was the 15th national survey to reach the same conclusion
in the past two decades.11 Why is it that these surveys are not being reported? Might there
be an unjustified agenda being carried out?
It turns out the system that is already in place--when strictly adhered to--prevents potential problems and allows us to enjoy the great American tradition of gun ownership. The system that
is in place right now involves four parts. The first part is a waiting time placed between ordering and receiving a gun. During that wait the second part, a thorough background check, is carried out. The third, firm laws and prosecuting criminals under those laws, is also vital. The last step is to conduct ongoing research on the varying degrees of gun control and safety.
If we look at current research, it tells us that instituting right-to-carry laws like concealed weapon permits, actually help to lower crime. These permits should naturally be awarded to law-abiding citizens who also pass a gun safety and training course.
The psychology of right-to-carry laws is plain and simple. Guns in the hands of
law-abiding citizens scares criminals straight, preventing crime before it happens. Bank
robbers, car-jackers, and muggers are unable to know who is carrying a weapon.
Assistance to the victim could be gained by anyone, anytime. It makes criminals and
would-be-criminals too nervous to carry out their crimes. The right-to-carry laws fit in
perfectly with all of the successful zero-tolerance policies used today, therefore it must
have merit.
So before we let frivolous lawsuits choke our courts and we consequently abandon
personal responsibility as a society, do not be fooled by the erroneous comments made by
anti-gunners. Listen to Charlton Heston, President of the NRA. Do not be fooled by Bill
Clinton’s rendition of The Justice Department’s study. Learn about the facts behind
concealed weapon permits. Understand all of the important details surrounding The 2nd
Amendment to the Constitution.
Americans need to stop being passive on this important issue and be proactive before a
necessary piece of our fundamental rights is hopelessly lost. Upon writing this article, I
was not a member of the NRA. However, I now feel the need to contribute to their cause
by joining them and their campaign to save an important and necessary piece of our
American tradition.
It appears that frivolous lawsuits are gaining more credibility in courtrooms across the
U.S. So we should not be surprised to learn that a mother is suing certain gun
manufacturers2 (one being Smith and Wesson3) for the gun slaying of her son. The killer
was said to have been impressing local gang members which resulted in the killing of her son.
Hopefully the new president of the NRA, Charlton Heston, will be able to reverse the tide
of ignorance that the anti-gun media regurgitates and help regain personal responsibility in the U.S. Mr. Heston addressed the anti-gun
phenomenon when he wrote:
As you probably know, England banned all handguns last year. October was the deadline
to surrender centerfire models, and this past February all rimfires were collected, as well.
That may not surprise some Americans, but it should. Because in less than a century, the
United Kingdom has gone from a nation with gun laws no more restrictive than
America’s, to a state where the idea of any private gun ownership at all is being scorned
and slandered out of existence.
It’s plain that our Constitution guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to own firearms.
But when I stand up and say so, the media call me everything from "ridiculous" and
"duped" to a "brain-injured, senile and crazy old man." Why do they assault me with such
a slashing brand of derision filled with hate?
We need every gun owner in America who believes in us, who believes in me, who
believes in the Constitution, to stand and be counted, here and now. They can’t expect
nearly 3 million NRA members to carry the load for 65 million gun owners.7
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.
Florida continues to be the anti-gunners’ least favorite "carry" state. Its homicide rate has
dropped 34.4% since right-to-carry became law. The rate for Florida’s 10 largest cities as
a group has dropped 29.7%, the largest decreases occurring primarily in cities that had the
worst homicide rates before right-to-carry became law.
Guns make life in the U.S. more safe for yet another reason. An armed citizenship can not
be threatened by a government gone awry. Recall Germany, from the 1930’s to the early
1940’s. Nazi loyalists easily squashed their internal opposition due to the citizenship’s
inability to own weapons.