No sane person wants innocent people victimized, maimed, or murdered, nor to see the perpetrators escape justice. This is true, whether the perpetrators use their hands or objects — like baseball bats, rocks, knives, vehicles, or a host of other readily available inanimate objects of endless variety — or a firearm. It is the intent and the will of the criminals, and not the inanimate objects they use, that are responsible for the criminal acts and the harm done to victims.

From the dawn of man, violent acts have been a sad aspect of life in nearly every civilization and culture. The violence in prisons shows how ineffective even close confinement, total control, and total surveillance can be in preventing this.

Many heavily restrictive governments have failed to prevent violence. In fact, history has shown that powerful, unrestrained governments commit murder and other acts of violence against their own citizens. According to careful statistical analysis by Professor R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii, in his detailed work Death By Government, "The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects." On the other hand, "The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked, and balanced, the less it will aggress on others."

Regardless of who commits the crimes, brutality and murder are moral issues, and the means or equipment used is really immaterial to the root problem, which is the condition of the human heart and mind. In our system of government, an important check against immoral acts of violence — whether committed by individuals acting alone, gangs, or unrestrained government — is the Second Amendment, which guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Yet today in America, the proponents of civilian disarmament often insist that inflicting a grievous wrong on all citizens — removing their most effective means of defense against the violence, in contradiction of the Second Amendment — will somehow correct the underlying moral problem.

Many Americans fear that despite the evidence, we are about to witness a broad array of gun-control efforts to limit or completely disenfranchise Americans' right to keep and bear arms.

After last November's elections changed the political climate at the national level and in a number of states, a huge surge in gun sales has been reported among retailers and dealers. FOX News' Catherine Herridge reported that the month Barack Obama was elected, the number of background checks was 42 percent greater than in November 2007. "It's not a hard tea leaf to read," said Jim Shepherd, publisher of the news service Outdoor Wire, which claims Obama's election has "frightened consumers into action."

Obama has repeatedly stated that he supports Second Amendment rights and will not crack down on gun owners, and in June he said he agreed with the Supreme Court when it overturned the District of Columbia handgun ban. But gun owners are not convinced. Obama's legislative record in support of gun control, and his offhand remark during the primaries that small-town Americans are "bitter" and "cling to their guns," suggest a very different approach to firearms regulation during his presidency. A December poll from Southwick Associates found that 80 percent of hunters and shooters expect the new administration and a Democratic Congress will make purchasing firearms more difficult.

An electronic news service that covers outdoor news has even named Obama its "Gun Salesman of the Year." "It's clear that gun owners and prospective gun owners are concerned about the incoming Obama administration and Congress," said Ted Novin, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

As a sentaor, incoming Vice President Joe Biden was a strong supporter of the assault-weapons ban, which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1994. As a state legislator in Illinois, Barack Obama backed a ban on semiautomatic weapons.

Obama will likely use the heavily liberal legislative bodies in Washington and in statehouses across the nation to help them accomplish this disenfranchisement of Americans piecemeal over the next few years. Unwittingly, or intentionally, many of our elected leaders are working hard to remove the ability of Americans to effectively defend themselves corporately — as our forefathers did — or individually against crime.

Touted as measures to prevent crime or capture criminals, they completely ignore the concept of individual rights on several levels. Nearly all will insert state or federal government very powerfully and dangerously deep into the personal and property rights and daily activities of law-abiding American people. 

Nearly every one of these efforts will instead either disarm or make criminals of a wide spectrum of law-abiding citizens by means of a dizzying array of new regulations, laws, taxes, and rules.

The Obama administration will almost certainly lead the charge. A federal bill, H.R. 45, also known as "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009," is a good example of an Obama-endorsed bill that threatens all of the ill effects mentioned above.

This bill was named after teenaged Blair Holt, a Julian High School student killed on a city bus in Chicago.

The bill requires a "Blair Holt" license, involving a detailed application including photo, thumb print, written test, release of mental health records, and new fees. Firearms owners would also be required to report all gun transfers (even those to other family members) to the attorney general's database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours or fail to report a change of address within 60 days. H.R. 45 is a relaunch of H.R. 2666 in 2007, co-sponsored by 15 other representatives including Barack Obama's new chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel.

The Northeast, a major battleground in this fight over the right to keep and bear arms, is home to monuments dedicated to men who two centuries ago fought and died to keep British soldiers from removing cannon, powder, and shot from storehouses in Lexington and Concord. They knew tyranny would follow disarmament.

As a nation our elected leaders and many in law enforcement have lost sight of the significance of that series of events and their purpose and the importance of arms to preserving liberty. In efforts supposedly intended to stem the moral problems that spawn the violence, they have turned to restricting liberty and denying law-abiding Americans a means of self-defense.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (11)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Robert said:

Remember our founding fathers. Their lessons are as true now as then Spot on! I am a devoted American, have served in our great nation's Army enlisted, and as an officer. I love our Republic. It is absolutely amazing to hear foolish people discount this fundamental idea. The 2nd amendment was written as an insurance policy by the constitutional framers. The recent Supreme court ruling backs this view fully. I pray, we never see the day it is necessary, however history has demonstrated time and time again it's necessity. Don't take it from just me, read the words of those wise old men who pen'd the framework of our country. Oh, and to those that say these are archaic ideas outdated, and obsolete, let me remind you, that since the time of Christ, there has not been a new crime invented, amazingly, over thousands of years, (if one really reads and understands history) lessons and quotes like these are ALWAYS relevant: "Under every government the dernier [Fr. last, or final] resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people... entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens." Anonymous 'framer' of the US Constitution Source: Independent Gazetteer, January 29, 1791 "The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams "Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option; that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others. ... The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton (The Federalist Papers)

January 19, 2009

Robert said:

Remember our founding fathers (continued) "To judge from the history of mankind, we shall be compelled to conclude, that the fiery and destructive passions of war, reign in the human breast, with much more powerful sway, than the mild and beneficent sentiments of peace; and, that to model our political systems upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character." Alexander Hamilton: writing as "Publius," in _Federalist No. 34,_ January 5, 1788 "Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry: 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836 The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun. Patrick Henry And a couple more in more recent history: Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible. Hubert H. Humphrey The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. Adolf Hitler: Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944,

January 19, 2009

William Taylor said:

... Has anyone seenn the march in England demanding their gun ownership back? Guns don't injure or kill people, people do. I am sixty seven years old, still working full time. go hunting every year, ben around guns all my life. I started hunting in the late 40's at eight years old with a 22 rifle, a old single shot, got my first Elk and Deer at 11 years old with a 30-30 my Grandpa gave me and have hunted evry sincce. My weapons have never been used in a crime, never been involved in a accident, and I keep them locked up in a gun safe along with the ammunition. They are legal hunting weapons. I live on a some ground out in te country. I am a construction electrician. I am also a vet. A Amy SF combat vet. I served my country when it was not popular to do so. What liberals want is a dicatorship. The heck with the constitution. They always side with the poor criminal who had a bad home life growing up. To me, that's a cop out. People know right from wrong. No matter how they grew up. When they make my guns illegal, I will no longer live in a free country. I have often wondered why the liberals want the guns taken away so bad.

January 20, 2009

andrew said:

... In the book entitled, "liberty or equality" the author says that all liberal programs like welfare and social security must be propped up by the use of "force" ....i.e. the government uses the force of the tax code to force us to fund these stupid programs..... ....wonder now "why" the libers want to take your guns away?...

January 20, 2009

Michael Lawrence said:

2nd ammendment Studies have shown time and again when the population of a country is disarmed the crime rate in almost every area of violent crime INCREASES.When criminals realize the general population is unable to defend itself it opens the doors for them to commit any crime they want. We all know that by the time the police show up the criminal is gone and all that is left are the victims. Any national gun ban, as proven by the U.K. and Austalia,only the law-abiding citizens are the ones to comply with the new laws.The criminals,most of which are possessing weapons illegally anyways,keep the guns they have so as to have the upper hand over the typical citizen.Recent studies have been released proving that disarmament of the civilian population has resulted in more crime in both the U.K. and Australia. An equal number of recent reports also confirm that when a state of the U.S.A. enacts a "Right-to-Carry" law that the crime rates across the board ,especially violent crime, drop dramatically. So what is the real purpose of distroying the second amendment? I think if we all sit back and do nothing it will only be the first and it will open the door to the total destruction of our bill of rights and our constitution. Our current administation seems to embace the idea of being under complete control of the U.N. .We all know how morally sound that organization is. Time will tell.

January 20, 2009

ElectSake said:

Where this is heading ElectSake.com Don't be caught unaware! Be informed! Be prepared! Visit "Revelation Now" at www.electsake.com to see where all this is leading.

January 20, 2009 | url

bob said:

Ha We haven't been a free country for a long time (patriot act). And this isn't just a bunch of liberal gun grabbers. Maybe we need to figure out who our new savior really works for. If passed this will just allow them to take even more of our freedoms with less of a fight.

January 22, 2009

Ashley said:

No Guns, No Freedom As American citizens, we can't honestly believe that banning weapons will ACTUALLY cut down on crime. This 'bill' trying to be passed was named after a kid who was gunned down on a bus - where do you think the guy who killed him got that gun? Criminals don't buy weapons and register them - they buy from private parties so they don't have to. Eliminating the ability for law abiding citizens to own weapons is only eliminating our safety. How can we protect ourselves from a gunman breaking into our home if we can't even have a weapon in our own house? As an Army vet's wife, I have been showed how to properly operate a weapon, and when my husband was deployed, I thanked God that I was able to keep it safe in my home, just in case. Guns don't actually kill people - people kill people. I just don't think the liberals will ever realize this until they get their stupid laws passed and realize that the criminals are the only citizens left with weapons, and yes, I have to agree with another post - crime WILL go up, as it has been proved. Why not rob the stores when you know the guy probably doesn't have a gun to stop you? If we as citizens don't have guns to protect us, then we don't have the freedoms we were intitled to.

January 28, 2009

Blogengeezer said:

Firearms concealed carry license After reading and hearing first hand of experiences of Rhodesians being slaughtered by the Militant Leftist thugs, urged on by the world's Liberal Leftist Media, and enthusiasticaly endorsed by world leaders. We all now can see the results of Liberal Leftist 'gun Control'. The result is todays ZIMBABWE with Robert Mugabe's thugs in charge (no term limits), once their media adored Savior. Anyone with just a small amount of intelligence will know that the worlds media (TIME, Newsweek, etc) caused the transformation of a once prosperous nation into one of Dependance, Dispair, Brutality, Genocide, Slaughter and Starvation. Don't think it can not happen to the USA with the same Leftist Liberal 'groupthink' pushing the exact same agenda. See the Firearms CCW article last month in DaFlikkers blog. Know what to expect as you apply for a CCW license, as well over 2 million US Citizens have. Join and support the NRA to have a unified voice. Contact your Representatives and Senators to control their votes on this subject. The stakes are extremely high ..for you and your families future.

January 29, 2009 | url

Denver Area said:

Obama denies Transparent Government - promotes Secret Society Today, Obama made sure that banks who took huge taxpayer bailout money and paid huge bonus to managers "will not have to pay it back" Citi Bank - Took Billions, then in Feb 2009, outsourced its entire IT department to India, slashing around 14,000 US related jobs. Obama has been busy. Not busy saving jobs from going overseas as he promised, but in creating a secret agenda. NPR reported that Obama has been more secret than previous Presidents. Of course, they excused him for not having "experience". What? Now they use this excuse. For somone that promised transparent government and then over and over has secret meetings for budget, employment, and guns... Where does this Secret Society stop?

February 04, 2009

AnnCoulter said:

Bobby Rush and the True Person Behind HR45 I think that people forget that the sponser of this bill is Bobby Rush and not President Obama. Bobby Rush is a "nut" and a former felon, having spent 6 months in jail for firearms offenses. He tried to introduce a bill in 1993 banning all handguns and raising the fee for an FFL to $3,000. He's a former Black Panther. He also is no friend of President Obama, they both have said harsh words about each other. His son is now doing time for having sex with female inmates, he must work in the prison system. I have no idea if the sex was consensual. This is not an Obama sponsored bill, please don't be misled. Find out, don't just read other's opinions. Look at the bill and read up on Bobby Rush.

February 05, 2009