Guns, Crime, and Freedom

Chapter 2 says that gun ownership would be mandatory if the right to keep and bear arms was interpreted like the other amendments (p.12). In fact, that was the law in 18th and 19th century America. You either showed up with your gun for the monthly militia muster, or paid a fine. Could an armed populace defeat a tyranny? It happened in 1781 America, and in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Indochina, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Algeria, Angola, Ireland, Israel, Mozambique, Yugoslavia, and Zimbabwe (p.20). Read your newspaper for current events. An armed people could not prevent an invasion but would give the invaders holy hell. Chapter 3 mentions that the use of guns is a common and effective deterrent to crime, but rarely reported in the corporate media (its not fit to print?). Chapter 4 explains why concealed firearms will protect the public. Florida's 1987 "right to carry" law was followed by a lowered crime rate. Chapter 5 tells why a "waiting period" didn't work in California, or anyplace else (p.42)!

Chapter 6 explains the "bait and switch" tactics used by the corporate media to attack people's rights just because guns started to used plastic in place of wood (automobiles, another deadly weapon, did this ages ago). Chapter 7 compares guns to vehicles. Everyone with a driver's license could buy one, and schools would teach their use. Every town would have one or more stores! Chapter 8 is on "Guns for Cash": this program has not lowered the number of murders anywhere its been tried. Chapter 9 tells of political chicanery by the Governor of Colorado after gang warfare broke out (pp.75-76). More children die from accidental drownings, bicycles, skate boards, automobiles, or medications than from shootings (p.81).

Chapter 10 explains why the hidden agenda of the "Brady Bill" is to disarm the people through registration, licensing, gun bans, and taxes. "Gun Control" groups will tell any lie to fool the voters. Registration leads to confiscation (pp.92-93). Chapter 11 tells of the growing realization by more people to defend their civil rights. Pages 100-101 tell of the ABA's policy dispute with the NRA. Gerry Spence says the ABA speaks for corporate interests, not the people. Chapter 12 gives examples on how dangerous convicts are released to terrorize the people. Isn't this a new way to oppress and distract the people? When people are in fear they can't realize how their government manipulates them. Does this result in a lower voter turnout?

This book is worth reading, even if you don't agree with all of it. My complaint about this book is its echo of the solution of the Gun Prohibitionists: pass more laws to create a better society. What is really needed is "good jobs at good wages"; prosperous people rarely commit violent crimes. That and stable neighborhoods (as in small towns).

This 1994 book claims to provide a concise reference to refute gun control arguments. It does not provide "opposing viewpoints". But the paid professionals who promote gun control policies use emotion, not reason. Their background is in advertising, public relations, or an allied field. They use fear and ignorance to drive away rational thought. The same techniques used to sell cigarettes, SUVs, and other higher-priced commodities. I once met a woman who was convinced that "childproof guns" were needed to prevent her 4 year old child from being shot. But she had no gun in her home! She also drove an SUV (for "safety") but worried about the reports of their dangers. You can't reason with anyone who has been conditioned to fear an inanimate object they they don't own. Telling her that most of the "children" who are shot are 15 to 17 year olds who are used by drug dealers didn't make any effect. She believed what she read in a weekly newsmagazine!

Chapter 2 discusses "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", which goes back to Colonial times. The newly powerful corporate class began to attack the traditional "well-regulated militia" in 1877 Pittsburgh. The campaign against the right to keep and bear arms still continues by these economic aristocrats, often hidden behind fronts like the Open Society Institute, the Joyce Foundation, etc. A "well-regulated militia" was composed of all eligible males, who had to show up for the monthly muster with their arms. Most importantly, they elected their own officers for a one year term. They provided the armed support for the civil authorities, and provided a "check and balance" against unpopular laws (like the attempt to enforce Prohibition in 1890s S. Carolina). Since the militia could not be sent out of state, this was a drawback to a newly imperial national government. The National Guard was invented as a select militia (of the well-to-do) and used as "white collar soldiers" in strike-breaking, etc. The "well-regulated militia" was attacked and eliminated by various state and federal laws from 1877 to 1934. These important facts are not in this book. (You can read "The Minuteman" by Gary Hart.)

Starting in 1934 the corporate ruling class then began to attack the right to keep and bear arms on the national level. Some states had already copied NY's Sullivan Law. They adopted the usual tactics of prohibition by banning the least-used arms. World War II intervened in this campaign. But in the mid 1960s the increasingly powerful corporate class passed the 1968 Gun Control Act, and other bans later. James Madison said Americans had the right and the advantage of being armed, unlike other countries whose rulers feared their people (p.8). Who do you trust?

However, LaPierre and the NRA are frequently compromising and signing off on a lot of bad legislation and proposals these days- be it Project Exile or an ill-defined message: 'don't make more laws restricting ownership, enforce those on the books.' As if all the laws on the books are constitutional anyway? NRA members should be vocal about this duplicity and compromise.