Written on Thursday, January 10, 2013 by Ralph Barker
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
It’s 3AM on a wet, cold Thursday morning. The family of five is fast asleep in their small apartment. Then, an ear piercing noise breaks the silence, Bam! Bam! Bam! Bam!!! The powerful knocks on the front door shatters the peace of the night.
Authorities on the other side of the door repeatedly shout “Open up immediately! Open up now!” This shocks family members to full awareness as a heart pounding terror engulfs their senses. The door is quickly opened in hopes to silence the loud yells of impatient officials. The KGB officers quickly enter and take the husband and father of three away. He had no weapons. No one did. Only them.
This account is representative of what happened routinely in the Soviet Union. Alexandr Solzhenitsyn records a similar occurrence in his Gulag Archipelago. This is what often happens when citizens allow themselves to be disarmed. The current efforts for gun control (code for future confiscation) by liberals in the wake of Newtown are now in overdrive.
Ted Nugent, rock musician and gun rights advocate has some strong words about gun control. I’ll bet they won’t get his guns. I love this guy:
“Where you have the most armed citizens in America, you have the lowest violent crime rate. Where you have the worst gun control, you have the highest crime rate.”
He showed his passion on the issue while engaged in a KLRU interview. With great emotion and conviction he said: “And that there is an argument in America from Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein–from a whole gaggle of numbnuts who would try to tell me that they would dictate how, where, and if I can defend myself–I find this preposterous. I find it unacceptable and I will not accept it. I am a free man. Don’t tread on me!”
The gun control debate, as currently framed is a red herring. It is fallacious. The issue is not just about the protection of children or the reduction of violent crimes. An equally important issue, the one the founders were more worried about, focused on our ability to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. History records the many instances of various societies that allowed their governments to take their guns. There are tens of millions of bodies in the ground that testify to this fact.
The national debate is now narrowly focused on the problem of mass murders committed by mostly mentally ill people or homegrown terrorists. As long as human beings are involved there will be murders and mass murders. There will always be crimes of passion whether one uses a gun, a bomb, knife, hammer, poison, or bare hands. Cain killed Abel probably with a rock. Maybe we should ban rocks? The nutty left approach is that since some people are mentally off balance and we don’t know where all of them are, we should disarm everyone. If they are successful and get our guns, the problem would still exist. Trust me on this or better yet trust history.
There is generally no doubt or disagreement from anyone that some people should not be allowed to have a gun. But, if Americans are disarmed, who will have the guns? The government and criminals will. Criminals always get guns when they want them. Do we want an America where only our government and criminals have guns? What if our government becomes oppressive? Oh, excuse me, I meant more oppressive.
Remember prohibition in our country’s history from 1920-1933? Congress banned alcohol manufacture, transportation, and sale. What a great idea. Everyone quit drinking right? Marijuana is illegal in almost all states and none of the citizens of those states smoke it right? And if we ban guns no one will have them? Of course they will.
In just the last few weeks the rhetoric and the constant demonization of gun owners has swelled to a deafening level. The left has successfully labeled those of us on the right as “mean spirited.” We are the ones who are mean spirited? Really? Here is just one example of the left’s worldview. These are the words of Donald Kaul, who writes for the Des Moines Register. He was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. Kaul says:
“Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. … Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that ‘prying the guns from their cold, dead hands’ thing works for me.”
He speaks with a kind and gentle spirit, doesn’t he? He appears to have no problem with the violent death of those who disagree with him. I don’t hear an outcry from the media over his comments, do you? And don’t be fooled. Many on the left agree with him. They just won’t say so out loud.
There are arguments on both sides of the issue as to whether violent crime declines with strict gun control. But, the antigun forces have framed the question and controlled the argument to their advantage. The discussion is always in the context to save lives and protect children. I don’t know of anyone who would not want to accomplish both of these things. But, the question remains as to how do we get this done without disarming everyone?
It’s worth noting that in Great Britain and Australia strict gun controls have not been successful. Historian Joyce Lee Malcolm sums up:
Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don’t provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.
It wasn’t that long ago that the primary people we worried about were the communists. Now they practically dictate policy in Washington and their tactics have not changed. Their current agenda is to get your guns and mine. If they are successful, then some of us will get the knock on the door at 3am.
This recent shift to demonize gun owners started during Obama’s first run for the Presidency. He denigrated those who “cling to their guns and religion.” Have we forgotten? Guns and religion are actually foundational to America’s founding.
We fought a war, with guns, to gain our freedom. Our Constitution guaranteed us the right to bear arms. What was mainly on the minds of our Founders? It wasn’t burglars, murderers, and other violent criminals. It was an oppressive government.
This is a fascinating and important fact. The little city of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance in 1982 (Sec. 34-21) requiring each head of household to own at least one firearm with ammunition. Now here’s the kicker. Kennesaw’s crime rate is less than half of that of the rest of the United States. Wow, could it be that criminals are more apt to perpetrate their crimes on those who don’t have guns? Yes, absolutely.
Let me give you a heads up. The first thing we will probably see from Washington is legislation to register all guns. Then, once the government knows where all the guns are, they will come for them either gun by gun as they are outlawed or in massive buy back programs. Time will tell. There will also be demands to close down gun shows.
As I write this article there have already been ten or more gun bills introduced into Congress. Something will come out of Congress soon. Liberals won’t let the recent Newtown tragedy go to waste. And, the media will help as they continue to stir the flames and keep the story alive as long as possible.
You and I have to ask ourselves this question: “Will I turn in my guns if the government demands that I do?” The decision we make won’t just affect us in 2013. It will impact generations to come. Many will live or die based on our answer to the question. What will you do? What will you do?
I will leave you with another great quotation:
“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.” George Mason