P
Patriot Games
Guest
"Assault Weapons" Hoax: Anatomy of a (Nearly) Perfect Misinformation Scam
Robert G. Heinritz, Jr. J.D.
"If 10,000 people call a dog a cow, it's still a dog." --Mark Twain
If you have watched many episodes of Miami Vice or programs like it, or for
that matter the nightly T.V. news, you are probably convinced that the
current push in Congress and various state legislatures to outlaw "assault
weapons" is a good idea. I know I was.
"The Devil is in the details," as the old saying goes. Those of us who have
suffered the ordeal of being trained in the law feel a compulsion to check
out the specifics. A little research revealed some surprises. It turns out,
most of hunting rifles my father gave me when I was a teenager - including
my first .22 - would be (and in two states are) banned as "assault weapons."
The politicians would have you think they are after machine guns, but in
fact proposed "assault weapons" bans would include a Sears Ted Williams .22
and the shotgun used by the President in a staged "hunting trip." How could
this be?
A little more research turned up something even more interesting. So called
"assault weapons" are rarely used for criminal purposes. As Chief of Police,
Joseph Constance, testified before a U.S. Senate committee, "Since police
started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are used in an
underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. My officers are more
likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an
assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."
Nationwide, less than 1% of "assault rifles" are misused, according to
former B.A.T.F. Director Stephen Higgins.
Intentionally Misleading Ambiguity
Just what is an assault rifle? The U.S. military has a very precise
definition. According to Department of Defense publications, an "assault
rifle" is a "short barrel, selective-fire rifle (ie. capable of either
semi-automatic or fully-automatic firing), chambered for a medium-power
rifle cartridge of relatively low recoil, making it capable of effective
fully-automatic fire up to 300 yards."
But this type of fully-automatic arm, which since 1934 has been strictly
regulated by federal law, is not what the gun banners are after. They use
the term "assault weapon" - not a military term at all but a more generic
and ambiguous description that they apply to any civilian semi-automatic
rifle. They deliberately use that ambiguity to mislead the uninformed and
attempt to ban anything which cosmetically "looks military" - plus a whole
lot more. For example, one rifle equipped with a "civilian" wooden stock is
perfectly legal - at least this time around. But the identical rifle with a
plastic stock and bayonet lug would be banned. (I'm sure we would all feel
much safer knowing our government is trying to deal with the outbreak of
bayonet attacks.) The so-called "assault weapon" ban would include magazines
that hold more than 10 bullets even if one doesn't own the firearm it fits
(a mandatory 5-year felony in New Jersey), and even certain books would be
included as "assault-weapon accessories." It would make felons of 35 to
50-million otherwise law-abiding Americans. The P.R. of the gun-banners,
primarily half-truths and outright lies, is effective enough that people who
should know better think the argument is about "machine guns!"
A (Nearly) Perfect Misinformation Scam
How did all of this start? It is the brainchild of Josh Sugarman, strategist
and P.R. genius of Handgun Control, Inc. and its sister organization, the
National Coalition To Ban Handguns, later renamed the more politically
correct, Coalition To Stop Gun Violence. They are on record as believing
that ownership of firearms for self-defense is immoral because it endangers
the lives of criminals. According to Rev. Allen Brockway of N.C.B.H., "It is
the Christian duty of a woman (or other victim) to submit to rape rather
than do anything to imperil an attacker's life." This, of course, is
contrary to U.S. and Judeo Christian value of life, and the right to defend
one's life, and the lives of one's family, from attacks by a wrongdoer.
For many years H.C.I. and N.C.B.H. had ongoing campaigns to ban
"Saturday-night specials," campaigns which if successful would primarily
harm poor people and Blacks by depriving them of affordable tools for
self-defense. When proposed bans came up for public vote they lost; even in
states like California, and cities like Cambridge, Massachusetts. If one
can't pass a gun ban in a town like Cambridge, forget it! So like any good
strategists, they did.
In 1988 Josh Sugarman developed a new strategy. In a paper titled "Assault
Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation," published in 1988 and
updated in 1989, Sugarman proposed targeting an object - a "bad gun" verses
a good gun. They would target "semi-automatic assault weapons" that could be
molded into a simple visual that would be sinister and frightening. Part of
the genius of this approach was that this item has no functional definition,
and thus could be limited or expanded as circumstances permit. Sugarman
recommended deception. According to Sugarman, "By moving against a category
of firearms that is not only a long gun, but difficult to define" they would
be able to "divide and weaken firearms owners" and "strengthen the handgun
restriction lobby." His paper spelled out how assault weapons "menacing
looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns
verses semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine
gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance for public
support for restrictions on these weapons." Thus, good people with "bad
guns" would equal bad people. Terrifying new-think!
The paper recommended waiting for a high-publicity outrage, suggesting that
"it may require a crisis of a far greater proportion before any action is
taken."
The script written, the stage set, enter a sociopath named Patrick Purdy.
If there was justice in our criminal justice system, Purdy would have long
ago been in jail. Arrested many times for felonies, and judged by
professionals to be emotionally ill and dangerous; he had successfully
plea-bargained charges against him to misdemeanors, or otherwise escaped
justice.
He committed his unspeakable atrocity against Cambodian refugee children
with a semi-automatic copy of an AK-47. The record showed that his rate of
fire was no faster than could have been accomplished with a bolt-action
rifle. (Remember the controversy on this subject when President Kennedy was
killed?) Because of restrictive California gun-laws, however, no one else on
the scene was armed and able to stop Purdy. Nevertheless, H.C.I. and
N.C.B.H. flooded the media and sympathetic Congressmen with their unique
spin on the event. They didn't blame the criminal justice system that could
and should have stopped this monster. They didn't even blame Patrick Purdy.
They blamed the rifle. And the media bought it.
But it was all a deception. Like any slick marketing genius, H.C.I. sells
whatever is hot at any given moment. They are on record with a strategy of
gradually nibbling away, bit by bit, at all of the Second Amendment rights
that were the foundation of freedom when this country was founded. Their
goal is a total gun ban. They are not shy about proposing enforcement
tactics that even the A.C.L.U. - a steadfastly anti-gun organization -
believes would violate our rights under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 10th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
"Ban Them All?"
Would a gun ban solve anything? As a scientist friend of mine is fond of
saying, "Without data, we are just another schmuck with an opinion." Until
the late 1970's there was little objective data, and the pro and anti gun
factions had little more than bumper-sticker slogans to support their
positions. The turning point came during the Carter administration.
Sociologist Peter Rossi was on record as being in favor of strict national
gun control. He and his University of Massachusetts colleagues James Wright
and Kathleen Daly were commissioned by the Carter administration to research
the issue to justify stronger gun control. Their conclusion? There is no
convincing proof that gun control curbs crime, or prevents criminals from
acquiring firearms. They found just the reverse to be more likely - that
civilian ownership of firearms deter or reduce crime.
What the Scientific Data Proves
Since then there have been many more independent, unbiased, scientific
studies. Inevitably they conclude: (1) At least three times more crimes are
thwarted by armed law-abiding citizens than by the police. (2) Firearms are
used by citizens to thwart crime far more often than they are misused by
criminals to commit crimes. (3) In jurisdictions with more "liberal" gun
laws (ie. fewer restrictions on law-abiding citizens) fewer crimes are
attempted. (4) Jurisdictions that enact stronger "gun control" laws
inevitably experience an increase in violent crime. (5) States that have
enacted concealed-carry permit laws have experienced a reduction in violent
crimes. (6) A safer society with lower medical costs results where
law-abiding citizens are encouraged in responsible gun ownership.
Deterrence? Individual responsibility? Roughly 70%-80% of all violent crime
is committed by 6% of the people. Other studies indicated that three-fifths
of convicted felons would not attack a potential victim who might be armed.
Criminals in states with higher civilian gun ownership worry more about
armed citizens than the police. In cities as diverse as Orlando, Fla.,
Albuquerque, N.M., Kennesaw, Ga., Highland Park, Mi., New Orleans, La., and
Detroit, Mi. crime was significantly reduced by public and private programs
which involved arming and training citizens in responsible self-defense.
In Orlando, for example, the police responded to a rape epidemic by
embarking on a highly publicized program which trained some 2,500 women in
firearm use. The next year rape fell by 88%, and burglary fell 25%. Not one
of the 2,500 women actually fired her weapon. The deterrent effect was
sufficient.
In Albuquerque felonies dropped significantly during a police strike -
because armed citizens patrolled their neighborhoods, and shop owners
publicly armed themselves. Similar results were produced in Detroit, New
Orleans, Highland Park, and Kennesaw. When individuals take responsibility,
rather than relying solely on law-enforcement professionals, both crime and
violence are reduced.
Even more interesting conclusions can be found in the National Self Defense
Survey, by Prof. Gary Keck, Ph.D. and Marc Gertz, Ph.D.; School of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 1993. Also, see
earlier study, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, Gary Keck, Ph.D.
(1992). CONCLUSION: In the U.S. there are approximately 2.5-million
defensive uses of firearms per year by law-abiding citizens against
criminals; most with no shots being fired or anyone being killed. Arming to
deter crime deters crime and violence!
HAVE YOU READ YOUR CONSTITUTION LATELY?
Right of the People? Here's an exercise you might want to try. First take
a look at the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Ask yourself, do the
Bill of Rights when taken as a whole (other than a brief reference in
Amendment 10) deal with individual rights or states' rights?
Next consider the Second Amendment specifically. It states:
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."
While our Constitution is a magnificent document, no one has ever held it
out to be a model of clarity. It wasn't until the 20th Century, however,
that anyone attempted to pervert the clear intentions of the Founding
Fathers by arguing that the 2nd Amendment merely guarantees the right of
states to have National Guards (something quite different, Constitutionally,
from a "militia" ). If you think the states' rights argument has merit,
consider the following:
II. "A well regulated school, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Would you consider a reasonable interpretation to mean only the state, or
the school, has the right to keep and read books? Is the right of the people
to keep and read books conditioned by the existence or nonexistence of a
well regulated school? Or does it mean what it says, that "the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."?
The answer was considered patently obvious to our founding fathers,
Congress, and the courts; and for the first century of the existence of this
country was not considered worthy of debate. For example, the U.S. Supreme
Court held in Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857) that
if freed blacks were "citizens" they would have the rights of all citizens,
including the right "to carry arms wherever they went."
"Militia", both then and now, has a commonly accepted meaning. "Militia"
refers to all law-abiding adults capable of bearing arms. It does not refer
to children, criminal-gangs, or felons. At English common law, in the
Colonies, and in the United States during the first century of it's
existence, law-abiding men of military age were required to possess arms
suitable for military use for defense of themselves and their country.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people."
--George Mason, 1788.
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves, and
include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential
that the whole body of people always possess arms."
--Richard Henry Lee, 1788.
"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual
discretion in private self defense."
--John Adams, 1787.
Is a militia appropriate for the 20th century? Consider these facts: (1)
Conservatively, over 160-million unarmed civilians have been killed by
governments in the 20th century alone. (2) As recently as World War II, when
the state National Guards had been federalized and sent overseas, the
militia (ie. citizens) of the states on our east and west coasts were called
to help guard against invasion by bringing their own privately owned arms.
(3) Rarely in the 20th century has a modern army been able to overcome an
armed citizenry. That is why nations like Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel,
Mozambique, and Zimbabwe exist today. That is why the Soviet Union was
driven out of Afghanistan, the United States out of Vietnam, and the French
out of Indo-China. That is why Chang, Simoza, and Battista were driven out
of their respective countries. Professional soldiers appreciate that a
determined people on their home ground, armed with small arms, can defeat a
modern military army - and they inevitably do so.
BILL OF RIGHTS - of the United States Constitution
(1) CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR
PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO
PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
(2) 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.
(3) NO SOLDIER SHALL, IN TIME OF PEACE BE QUARTERED IN ANY HOUSE, WITHOUT
THE CONSENT OF THE OWNER, NOR IN TIME OF WAR, BUT IN A MANNER TO BE
PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
(4) THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS,
AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE
VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY
OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED,
AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED.
(5) NO PERSON SHALL BE HELD TO ANSWER FOR A CAPITAL, OR OTHERWISE INFAMOUS
CRIME, UNLESS ON A PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT OF A GRAND JURY, EXCEPT IN
CASES ARISING IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES, OR IN THE MILITIA, WHEN IN ACTUAL
SERVICE IN TIME OF WAR OR PUBLIC DANGER; NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE SUBJECT FOR
THE SAME OFFENCE TO BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIMB; NOR SHALL BE
COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF, NOR BE
DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR
SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.
(6) IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT TO A
SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL, BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT
WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, WHICH DISTRICT SHALL HAVE BEEN
PREVIOUSLY ASCERTAINED BY LAW, AND TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF
THE ACCUSATION; TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM; TO HAVE
COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES IN HIS FAVOR, AND TO HAVE THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE.
(7) IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW, WHERE THE VALUE IN CONTROVERSY SHALL EXCEED
TWENTY DOLLARS, THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY SHALL BE PRESERVED, AND NO FACT
TRIED BY A JURY, SHALL BE OTHERWISE REEXAMINED IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES, THAN ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF THE COMMON LAW.
(8) EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED, NOR EXCESSIVE FINES IMPOSED, NOR
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED.
(9) THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION, OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, SHALL NOT BE
CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE.
(10) THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR
PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR
TO THE PEOPLE.
(Ratified December 15, 1791)
Robert G. Heinritz, Jr. J.D.
"If 10,000 people call a dog a cow, it's still a dog." --Mark Twain
If you have watched many episodes of Miami Vice or programs like it, or for
that matter the nightly T.V. news, you are probably convinced that the
current push in Congress and various state legislatures to outlaw "assault
weapons" is a good idea. I know I was.
"The Devil is in the details," as the old saying goes. Those of us who have
suffered the ordeal of being trained in the law feel a compulsion to check
out the specifics. A little research revealed some surprises. It turns out,
most of hunting rifles my father gave me when I was a teenager - including
my first .22 - would be (and in two states are) banned as "assault weapons."
The politicians would have you think they are after machine guns, but in
fact proposed "assault weapons" bans would include a Sears Ted Williams .22
and the shotgun used by the President in a staged "hunting trip." How could
this be?
A little more research turned up something even more interesting. So called
"assault weapons" are rarely used for criminal purposes. As Chief of Police,
Joseph Constance, testified before a U.S. Senate committee, "Since police
started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are used in an
underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. My officers are more
likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an
assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."
Nationwide, less than 1% of "assault rifles" are misused, according to
former B.A.T.F. Director Stephen Higgins.
Intentionally Misleading Ambiguity
Just what is an assault rifle? The U.S. military has a very precise
definition. According to Department of Defense publications, an "assault
rifle" is a "short barrel, selective-fire rifle (ie. capable of either
semi-automatic or fully-automatic firing), chambered for a medium-power
rifle cartridge of relatively low recoil, making it capable of effective
fully-automatic fire up to 300 yards."
But this type of fully-automatic arm, which since 1934 has been strictly
regulated by federal law, is not what the gun banners are after. They use
the term "assault weapon" - not a military term at all but a more generic
and ambiguous description that they apply to any civilian semi-automatic
rifle. They deliberately use that ambiguity to mislead the uninformed and
attempt to ban anything which cosmetically "looks military" - plus a whole
lot more. For example, one rifle equipped with a "civilian" wooden stock is
perfectly legal - at least this time around. But the identical rifle with a
plastic stock and bayonet lug would be banned. (I'm sure we would all feel
much safer knowing our government is trying to deal with the outbreak of
bayonet attacks.) The so-called "assault weapon" ban would include magazines
that hold more than 10 bullets even if one doesn't own the firearm it fits
(a mandatory 5-year felony in New Jersey), and even certain books would be
included as "assault-weapon accessories." It would make felons of 35 to
50-million otherwise law-abiding Americans. The P.R. of the gun-banners,
primarily half-truths and outright lies, is effective enough that people who
should know better think the argument is about "machine guns!"
A (Nearly) Perfect Misinformation Scam
How did all of this start? It is the brainchild of Josh Sugarman, strategist
and P.R. genius of Handgun Control, Inc. and its sister organization, the
National Coalition To Ban Handguns, later renamed the more politically
correct, Coalition To Stop Gun Violence. They are on record as believing
that ownership of firearms for self-defense is immoral because it endangers
the lives of criminals. According to Rev. Allen Brockway of N.C.B.H., "It is
the Christian duty of a woman (or other victim) to submit to rape rather
than do anything to imperil an attacker's life." This, of course, is
contrary to U.S. and Judeo Christian value of life, and the right to defend
one's life, and the lives of one's family, from attacks by a wrongdoer.
For many years H.C.I. and N.C.B.H. had ongoing campaigns to ban
"Saturday-night specials," campaigns which if successful would primarily
harm poor people and Blacks by depriving them of affordable tools for
self-defense. When proposed bans came up for public vote they lost; even in
states like California, and cities like Cambridge, Massachusetts. If one
can't pass a gun ban in a town like Cambridge, forget it! So like any good
strategists, they did.
In 1988 Josh Sugarman developed a new strategy. In a paper titled "Assault
Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation," published in 1988 and
updated in 1989, Sugarman proposed targeting an object - a "bad gun" verses
a good gun. They would target "semi-automatic assault weapons" that could be
molded into a simple visual that would be sinister and frightening. Part of
the genius of this approach was that this item has no functional definition,
and thus could be limited or expanded as circumstances permit. Sugarman
recommended deception. According to Sugarman, "By moving against a category
of firearms that is not only a long gun, but difficult to define" they would
be able to "divide and weaken firearms owners" and "strengthen the handgun
restriction lobby." His paper spelled out how assault weapons "menacing
looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns
verses semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine
gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance for public
support for restrictions on these weapons." Thus, good people with "bad
guns" would equal bad people. Terrifying new-think!
The paper recommended waiting for a high-publicity outrage, suggesting that
"it may require a crisis of a far greater proportion before any action is
taken."
The script written, the stage set, enter a sociopath named Patrick Purdy.
If there was justice in our criminal justice system, Purdy would have long
ago been in jail. Arrested many times for felonies, and judged by
professionals to be emotionally ill and dangerous; he had successfully
plea-bargained charges against him to misdemeanors, or otherwise escaped
justice.
He committed his unspeakable atrocity against Cambodian refugee children
with a semi-automatic copy of an AK-47. The record showed that his rate of
fire was no faster than could have been accomplished with a bolt-action
rifle. (Remember the controversy on this subject when President Kennedy was
killed?) Because of restrictive California gun-laws, however, no one else on
the scene was armed and able to stop Purdy. Nevertheless, H.C.I. and
N.C.B.H. flooded the media and sympathetic Congressmen with their unique
spin on the event. They didn't blame the criminal justice system that could
and should have stopped this monster. They didn't even blame Patrick Purdy.
They blamed the rifle. And the media bought it.
But it was all a deception. Like any slick marketing genius, H.C.I. sells
whatever is hot at any given moment. They are on record with a strategy of
gradually nibbling away, bit by bit, at all of the Second Amendment rights
that were the foundation of freedom when this country was founded. Their
goal is a total gun ban. They are not shy about proposing enforcement
tactics that even the A.C.L.U. - a steadfastly anti-gun organization -
believes would violate our rights under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 10th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
"Ban Them All?"
Would a gun ban solve anything? As a scientist friend of mine is fond of
saying, "Without data, we are just another schmuck with an opinion." Until
the late 1970's there was little objective data, and the pro and anti gun
factions had little more than bumper-sticker slogans to support their
positions. The turning point came during the Carter administration.
Sociologist Peter Rossi was on record as being in favor of strict national
gun control. He and his University of Massachusetts colleagues James Wright
and Kathleen Daly were commissioned by the Carter administration to research
the issue to justify stronger gun control. Their conclusion? There is no
convincing proof that gun control curbs crime, or prevents criminals from
acquiring firearms. They found just the reverse to be more likely - that
civilian ownership of firearms deter or reduce crime.
What the Scientific Data Proves
Since then there have been many more independent, unbiased, scientific
studies. Inevitably they conclude: (1) At least three times more crimes are
thwarted by armed law-abiding citizens than by the police. (2) Firearms are
used by citizens to thwart crime far more often than they are misused by
criminals to commit crimes. (3) In jurisdictions with more "liberal" gun
laws (ie. fewer restrictions on law-abiding citizens) fewer crimes are
attempted. (4) Jurisdictions that enact stronger "gun control" laws
inevitably experience an increase in violent crime. (5) States that have
enacted concealed-carry permit laws have experienced a reduction in violent
crimes. (6) A safer society with lower medical costs results where
law-abiding citizens are encouraged in responsible gun ownership.
Deterrence? Individual responsibility? Roughly 70%-80% of all violent crime
is committed by 6% of the people. Other studies indicated that three-fifths
of convicted felons would not attack a potential victim who might be armed.
Criminals in states with higher civilian gun ownership worry more about
armed citizens than the police. In cities as diverse as Orlando, Fla.,
Albuquerque, N.M., Kennesaw, Ga., Highland Park, Mi., New Orleans, La., and
Detroit, Mi. crime was significantly reduced by public and private programs
which involved arming and training citizens in responsible self-defense.
In Orlando, for example, the police responded to a rape epidemic by
embarking on a highly publicized program which trained some 2,500 women in
firearm use. The next year rape fell by 88%, and burglary fell 25%. Not one
of the 2,500 women actually fired her weapon. The deterrent effect was
sufficient.
In Albuquerque felonies dropped significantly during a police strike -
because armed citizens patrolled their neighborhoods, and shop owners
publicly armed themselves. Similar results were produced in Detroit, New
Orleans, Highland Park, and Kennesaw. When individuals take responsibility,
rather than relying solely on law-enforcement professionals, both crime and
violence are reduced.
Even more interesting conclusions can be found in the National Self Defense
Survey, by Prof. Gary Keck, Ph.D. and Marc Gertz, Ph.D.; School of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 1993. Also, see
earlier study, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, Gary Keck, Ph.D.
(1992). CONCLUSION: In the U.S. there are approximately 2.5-million
defensive uses of firearms per year by law-abiding citizens against
criminals; most with no shots being fired or anyone being killed. Arming to
deter crime deters crime and violence!
HAVE YOU READ YOUR CONSTITUTION LATELY?
Right of the People? Here's an exercise you might want to try. First take
a look at the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Ask yourself, do the
Bill of Rights when taken as a whole (other than a brief reference in
Amendment 10) deal with individual rights or states' rights?
Next consider the Second Amendment specifically. It states:
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."
While our Constitution is a magnificent document, no one has ever held it
out to be a model of clarity. It wasn't until the 20th Century, however,
that anyone attempted to pervert the clear intentions of the Founding
Fathers by arguing that the 2nd Amendment merely guarantees the right of
states to have National Guards (something quite different, Constitutionally,
from a "militia" ). If you think the states' rights argument has merit,
consider the following:
II. "A well regulated school, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be
infringed."
Would you consider a reasonable interpretation to mean only the state, or
the school, has the right to keep and read books? Is the right of the people
to keep and read books conditioned by the existence or nonexistence of a
well regulated school? Or does it mean what it says, that "the right of the
people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."?
The answer was considered patently obvious to our founding fathers,
Congress, and the courts; and for the first century of the existence of this
country was not considered worthy of debate. For example, the U.S. Supreme
Court held in Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857) that
if freed blacks were "citizens" they would have the rights of all citizens,
including the right "to carry arms wherever they went."
"Militia", both then and now, has a commonly accepted meaning. "Militia"
refers to all law-abiding adults capable of bearing arms. It does not refer
to children, criminal-gangs, or felons. At English common law, in the
Colonies, and in the United States during the first century of it's
existence, law-abiding men of military age were required to possess arms
suitable for military use for defense of themselves and their country.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people."
--George Mason, 1788.
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves, and
include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential
that the whole body of people always possess arms."
--Richard Henry Lee, 1788.
"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual
discretion in private self defense."
--John Adams, 1787.
Is a militia appropriate for the 20th century? Consider these facts: (1)
Conservatively, over 160-million unarmed civilians have been killed by
governments in the 20th century alone. (2) As recently as World War II, when
the state National Guards had been federalized and sent overseas, the
militia (ie. citizens) of the states on our east and west coasts were called
to help guard against invasion by bringing their own privately owned arms.
(3) Rarely in the 20th century has a modern army been able to overcome an
armed citizenry. That is why nations like Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel,
Mozambique, and Zimbabwe exist today. That is why the Soviet Union was
driven out of Afghanistan, the United States out of Vietnam, and the French
out of Indo-China. That is why Chang, Simoza, and Battista were driven out
of their respective countries. Professional soldiers appreciate that a
determined people on their home ground, armed with small arms, can defeat a
modern military army - and they inevitably do so.
BILL OF RIGHTS - of the United States Constitution
(1) CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR
PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO
PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
(2) 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.
(3) NO SOLDIER SHALL, IN TIME OF PEACE BE QUARTERED IN ANY HOUSE, WITHOUT
THE CONSENT OF THE OWNER, NOR IN TIME OF WAR, BUT IN A MANNER TO BE
PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
(4) THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS,
AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE
VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY
OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED,
AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED.
(5) NO PERSON SHALL BE HELD TO ANSWER FOR A CAPITAL, OR OTHERWISE INFAMOUS
CRIME, UNLESS ON A PRESENTMENT OR INDICTMENT OF A GRAND JURY, EXCEPT IN
CASES ARISING IN THE LAND OR NAVAL FORCES, OR IN THE MILITIA, WHEN IN ACTUAL
SERVICE IN TIME OF WAR OR PUBLIC DANGER; NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE SUBJECT FOR
THE SAME OFFENCE TO BE TWICE PUT IN JEOPARDY OF LIFE OR LIMB; NOR SHALL BE
COMPELLED IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF, NOR BE
DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; NOR
SHALL PRIVATE PROPERTY BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE, WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.
(6) IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT TO A
SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL, BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE STATE AND DISTRICT
WHEREIN THE CRIME SHALL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, WHICH DISTRICT SHALL HAVE BEEN
PREVIOUSLY ASCERTAINED BY LAW, AND TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF
THE ACCUSATION; TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM; TO HAVE
COMPULSORY PROCESS FOR OBTAINING WITNESSES IN HIS FAVOR, AND TO HAVE THE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR HIS DEFENSE.
(7) IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW, WHERE THE VALUE IN CONTROVERSY SHALL EXCEED
TWENTY DOLLARS, THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY SHALL BE PRESERVED, AND NO FACT
TRIED BY A JURY, SHALL BE OTHERWISE REEXAMINED IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES, THAN ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF THE COMMON LAW.
(8) EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED, NOR EXCESSIVE FINES IMPOSED, NOR
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED.
(9) THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION, OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, SHALL NOT BE
CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE.
(10) THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR
PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR
TO THE PEOPLE.
(Ratified December 15, 1791)