Friday, June 27, 2008

Melt The Guns




From the Virginia Declaration of Independence, drafted by George Mason in 1776:


That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms,is the proper, natural,and safe defense of a free state;that standing armies,in time of peace,should be avoided as dangerous to liberty;and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to,and governed by,the civil power.

It is a bleeding shame that this exact wording was not used in the United States Constitution, especially the part about avoiding standing armies during peacetime. This caveat against standing peacetime armies was echoed in Dwight D. Eisenhower's famous White House farewell speech, in which Ike outlined the rise of the "Military-Industrial Complex". He, like Mason, warned of the dangers inherent in maintaining a large, standing military force during times of peace. President Eisenhower feared that such a force would inevitably lead to endless wars, war being neccesary for the care and feeding of the MI Complex and the well-being of the war-profiteers. One need look no further than Iraq to see the consequences of ignoring Mason and Eisenhower.

The United States Constitution is worded thusly, (emphasis added):


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.

Five radical Supreme Court Justices recently interpreted the phrase "well regulated Militia" to mean: "people who live in Washington D.C." Sadly, this sets precedent for the overturning of long-established local and regional anti-gun laws currently on the books, such as those in Chicago, San Francisco, New York and even here in Virginia. All of those gun-control laws were passed in response to alarming rises in the incidence of gun-related violence and crime, including an assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan.


A number of factors play important roles in the data shown in this chart, courtesy of the FBI:

1) The passage of local, municipal and state-wide measures to limit the availability of handguns.


2) The national Brady Bill, requiring a waiting period and a background check when an individual purchases a handgun.


3) The soaring peacetime prosperity of the Clinton era. As our economy sinks, people are becoming increasingly desperate and are turning to crime- robberies in paricular- in a last-ditch, hopeless effort to make ends meet.


Below is a chart of America's budget deficits and surpluses. Note that the annual number of gun crimes rises and falls in tandem with the national budget- during prosperity, the incidence of gun crimes falls...as the deficits grows larger, so do the number of gun-related crimes. It's what an expert would refer to as a "no-brainer".


As of this writing, America is in dire financial straits. For many citizens, jobs are scarce, gas is a luxury and healthcare is non-existant. Violent crime- especially robberies- is on the rise. The Supreme Court believes that throwing guns at the problem will solve it, if every citizen is packing heat, everyone will be afraid of everyone else and our shared fear of death by shoot-out will magically protect us all. There is nothing in the statistical or historical record tos support that assertion- but the link to poverty and violence is well-documented. Offhand, I'd say that the best way to protect ourselves from gun-weilding maniacs and thieves is to eliminate the causes of crime- raising the national standard of living would be a good start.



Have you ever been cut-off in traffic by a careless driver who neglects to use their turn signal? Has anyone ever pulled out in front of you without looking both ways?
This is where the Virginian wording comes into play- "trained to arms". The Supreme ruling allows untrained laypersons to keep guns lying around their home. If you don't know how to use a weapon, it can't protect you, it can only harm you. I'd wager that by this time next year, we will see a marked increase in people who are killed by their own guns, either by accident or after said gun is taken away by a thief and used against the owner. And, of course, there are children. Children shouldn't play with guns, but they will if they can.

Why not just issue a snub-nosed .38 with every Social Security Number, retroactive to at least 1966 ?
(I want my free gun. It will help me with my road rage issues.)


What could possibly go wrong ?

5 comments:

yellowdog granny said...

believe it or not..I'm a redneck that doesn't believe in every scmuck should have a gun...I see no need for ak47's or any of the multibullet spewing guns that are so popular..think hand guns should be outlawed completely..and only guns for the express purpose of hunting and you can only carry them during hunting season..but then what do i know?

billy pilgrim said...

bush could save a fortune by giving all those about to be crushed guns to israel in lieu of the billions in cash israel routinely pockets.

Sling said...

I must think about these excellent points you have made my friend.
I have no desire to own a gun.More importantly,I'm forbidden to posess a firearm,by virtue of having been convicted of a felony.
..This is probably as it should be.

But still,(you had to know that was coming)..
The right to bear arms was never enacted to keep us secure from the statistically irrelevent home invasion,or sidewalk encounter of vicious ne'er-do-wells..
It's a proviso against the overtures of totalitarian government,and for the government to restrict gun ownership,strikes me as just too much convenience..
Like I said,I have no use for a gun.
I prefer a more 'hands on' appraoch.
Terrific post buddy!

NYD said...

I like the way you think.
I also like the way you express yourself.

Unfortunately, if I were living in America today I might just feel the need to posses a gun.

It is an excellent tool to convince someone to respect your property and person.

It is not the answer for every disagreement, but it certainly can settle the life treatening ones with authority and temerity.

Allan said...

Aughhh...I carelessly omitted the gist of my argument: I'm OK with people owning guns, but I'd like to see a mandatory safety/usage course become part of the ownership package, much like a driver's test and license...to continue that thought, why not force gun owners to buy "gun insurance" much as we are forced to buy auto insurance?

JS- I hear Texas has a lot of guns.

BP- Israel only accepts hi-dollar state-o-art weaponry.

Sling- Yeah, that was the intent...too bad so many gun freaks STILL love their BushCo.

NYD- As long as you know how to handle/secure it,it's cool with me.