Many people seem to believe that there is some major need to compromise on some aspects of gun control. While the recent tragedies certainly need to be looked at closely and methods put in place for preventing or dealing with such crimes, is more gun control really the answer? For the time being, there seems to be such an emotional reaction to the entire issue that any actual debate is impossible. That alone should be a red flag and force at least some postponement of serious debate among the politicians. Emotionally based policies are not going to help anyone and will greatly hinder all law-abiding citizens if we allow this to happen.
If it is possible to get past any of the emotional issues regarding gun control and the recent tragedies, that is certainly the first step that needs to be taken. Emotion and Law do not go well together and any politician who wants to propose unjust and unconstitutional laws based on emotional reactions needs to face immediate recall. It is perhaps most important to remember that the job of the government is to insure the rights of the people, not to restrict them. Unfortunately, it would seem that a vast majority of the people would prefer to run off half-cocked based on arbitrary and ever-changing emotional standards that have no bearing in fact, reality or constitutionality. If we are to continue to live in a nation of Law we need to adhere to the law but that law must also be based on certain principles. In the case of both the States and the federal government, the Supreme Law of the Land remains our constitutions. Any law that violates one or both of those constitutions is by its very nature, unconstitutional no matter what any Supreme Court may say. Remember, the SCOTUS once held that slavery was just fine and dandy; the say of the Supreme Court Justices is NOT the final say regarding any law. If need be, we the people need to rise together to fight such injustices and that time may well come if the current emotional rants continue in lieu of congressional and senatorial debate based on facts, reality and the Constitutions.
Once we have persuaded our politicians to get off of their emotional bandwagons and face reality, there is a need to look at the historical precedent regarding further restricting the rights of the people and gun laws such as Gun Registration. One of the best places to start this search is with a look at gun control laws as a whole rather than focusing on any individual gun control law just yet. Historically, have gun control laws been successful in efforts to curtail crime? The one example I have found that works exceedingly well for this is a very simple comparison between two locations with current gun laws that are polar opposites and worlds apart. Take the two locations; Kennesaw Georgia, effectively little more than a suburb of Atlanta, a rather crime ridden city … with all due respect to the people of that city. In Kennesaw Georgia, local statutes require that all able-bodied persons not suffering from mental incapacitation or religious views which would restrict such an action, to own a firearm; compare that to the city of Chicago where they “enjoy” some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
Kennesaw Georgia, according to the emotional arguments being presented these days, should have a Wild West sort of environment with nightly gun fights and High Noon shootouts on Main Street. This is of course ignoring the historical reality that even the most deadly of the old west towns never had any more than five shooting deaths in a single year, and that was in large part due to the Gunfight at the OK Corral where three people died in a single day. (Again, facts are so stubborn when the person is arguing rather than debating and using emotion-fueled beliefs rather than simply looking at the statistics) Yet the facts do indeed show that Kennesaw has roughly eighty-five percent lower crime rates than the State average which also happens to be much lower than the national average. How is it possible that a town where everybody is required to own a firearm, situated next to a large, urban center is not rife with crime? Could it possibly be that gun ownership does in fact reduce crime? In order to discover if that is true or not, a closer look at ChicagoIllinois should be taken to see just how these facts and figures compare.
Chicago “enjoys” some of the toughest gun laws in the nation so again, based solely on the emotional arguments being bandied about, the citizens in Chicago and indeed, throughout Illinois should enjoy some of the lowest crime rates in the nation. Alas, that is not the case in reality. In reality, Chicago has more gun deaths per year than we as a nation have soldiers lost in combat in all of our known “kinetic military actions” across the globe. Now in deference to our kith and kin in Chicago, there is at least some partial “justification” for these facts and figures. That will be gone over in the next paragraph of this article but what conclusion is the logical one to agree upon when looking at these actual facts without the interjection of emotional outbursts? The only logical or reasonable conclusion is that gun laws do not in fact work. The gun laws will only reduce the ability of the law-abiding citizen to defend themselves or others in the case of a criminal who is unimpeded by the law.
Now in something of a means of redemption for our kith and kin in Chicago and other high-crime areas … read: INNER CITIES … there is some measure of comfort in that even in these locations, the crime statistics are very revealing. We often hear about the horrendous amount of gun crimes if we listen to the mainstream media. Well, we would if they were actually journalists reporting the facts anyhow. The facts and figures are all over the news and the Internet so I am not going to be adding any statistical analysis charts here. Look them up if you want to know the exact figures, it is much better than taking my word on anything anyhow. Still, more than seventy percent of all gun crimes are committed by inner city youth and a major portion of that is through gang-on-gang violence. Now a reasonable person may conclude that the problem is probably going to be more associated with the people using the tools than with the tools themselves. Once the politicians allow for emotional rants to be used in lieu of facts or evidence however, all bets are off. If some seventy plus percent of all gun crime is committed by gang-bangers and wannabes, maybe the solution is getting the criminals off the street? Again that is a topic for a different article altogether.
At present, around the nation as a whole, there are some twenty thousand gun laws already on the books. That boils down to roughly four hundred laws per state if it is divided equally among all fifty of these independent but United States. The question that should be raised in accordance with this statistic is if twenty-thousand some-odd gun laws are not serving any purpose in avoiding these types of crimes, what good are twenty-thousand and one gun laws going to do? The simple and short answer is that these latest tactics based on emotional outbursts will not have any effect at reducing crime whatsoever. In fact, history once again comes around to bite the emotional argument in the butt. If we banned guns altogether crime would surely be reduced right? This was the justification used to pass just such restrictive bans in Australia and the UK. So what has been the result there?
In the UK, the average citizen is nearly five times as likely to be the victim of a violent crime as they are in the US. In Australia, that number jumps to six … the average citizen in Australia is nearly six times as likely to be the victim of a violent crime as they would be if they lived in these independent but United States … well at least if they were not living in the inner cities. The Inner Cities are the focal point here as that is where the vast majority of these crimes take place. Again, looking at national crime statistics, crime rates in the inner cities are without exception, higher than they are in the more rural areas.
Yeah, so what does all that have to do with gun registration? Nobody is calling for a complete ban on firearms (except for all of the politicians that ARE calling for a complete ban on firearms but again, that is a different article) they just want all of the law-abiding citizens to register their guns. Historically, this has got to be a good thing right? I mean seriously, what does any law-abiding citizen have to fear from their very own government when registering their firearms? It must be pondered if any of the people calling for such seemingly harmless intervention that we know will not prevent any crimes, has actually looked at the historical precedents here. The fact is that historically, gun registration actually HAS been a major benefit in many ways. Yes, you read that correctly, I said it HAS been beneficial to many governments throughout history. Still, a complete historical accounting would be far too extensive even for one of my lengthy articles. Given that is the case, this will restrict our historical observations to cases in the twentieth century where gun registration has proven beneficial.
One fact that is not often noted in History classes is that Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies as the world moved into the twentieth century. Every member of the standing army kept their arms at home. During the many two major revolutions of 1917 it was feared that many of these military men would interfere with the coups so during what has come to be known as “The Bloody Revolution” by the up and coming communists, a deal was struck with the military. If they would allow the revolution to proceed unhindered, they would be allowed to keep their arms. The only requirement was that they would have to register them once the communist government was in power. As the Russian citizens and members of the military took their weapons in to register them, the weapons were confiscated and the firearm owners were shot. Thus, the communist government of Russia likely believed that simple gun registration was a great thing.
All the Hitler references from both the left and the right get pretty old. Still, it is interesting to note the opposing views of gun control as passed by Hitler … and even more interesting considering the historical relevance and accuracy of those observations, even if some of the conclusions seem to be a bit skewed. Hitler was indeed a firm believer in gun control and more specifically, gun registration. In the WeimarRepublic, gun ownership was encouraged, albeit it to a very limited class of people. Namely, anyone who was a card carrying member of the National Socialist Party was not only allowed, but encouraged to own a firearm. Anyone who would not march lock, step and barrel alongside all of Hitler’s dreams was legally prevented from owning firearms. Does that sound a little familiar to what is going on these days? It is interesting to note because some proponents of gun regulations will use the proliferation of firearms among party members to assure us that Hitler did not believe in gun control when quite the opposite was in fact true. These days, we are to believe that only government officials and those that walk lock, stock and barrel, hand-in-hand with the party need to own firearms. The similarities strike me as both amazing and in all honesty, quite frightening. Still, gun registration did not play nearly as large a role in the WeimarRepublic as it did in occupied France.
Before World War Two, France had very restrictive gun controls and they were innocuous in nature, much the same as the current federal administration would have us believe that their proposals are. While it is not statistically probable that each and every firearm throughout France was registered, the vast majority of them were. Hitler not only innovated but perfected the art of the Lightning War or Blitzkrieg. The primary targets were the press outlets so there was no communications, any potential serious threats such as local military or police and government buildings. The government buildings including police stations were to be taken in one piece wherever possible. The police stations and other government buildings contained a host of records, including those of law-abiding citizens who had dutifully registered their guns in such a harmless manner. The home of each and every gun owner had troops sent out, all of the residents or at least current occupants were killed and a search for the firearms continued once all of the people living in the home were safely DEAD! This policy allowed Hitler to establish a fully functioning government in Occupied France within two weeks of his arrival and he faced very little resistance, thanks in no small part to gun registration.
There are countless examples throughout the twentieth century of governments and dictators utilizing gun registration as a vehicle, a path to the complete disarmament of their citizens. To go through each and every one in detail would fill tomes … HAS filled numerous books about the consequences of their actions. Still though, it is important to look at both sides of every story. What has been the history of those nations who did not have strict gun laws? What have been the ramifications for nations that did not believe that citizens should be denied any right to own firearms? There is yet another very good lesson to be learned from history here.
Looking back, it is difficult to believe that our government never saw the imminent threat to Pearl Harbor. Whatever the case may have been, a very tragic event occurred on the Seventh of December in 1941. The record of the Japanese occupations of the Philippines and China are filled with horror stories that even made some of the murderous Nazi leaders ill. The Japanese were anything but merciful and to say that their methods were barbaric would be to slander the Barbarians. The bottom line is that after such a successful raid on Pearl Harbor, there was literally nothing stopping the Japanese from invading these independent but United States. That is to say, there was nothing but a whole lot of very angry and well armed American citizens. In the words of the Japanese leaders, to invade America would see an armed American behind every blade of grass. In other words, it was not the military reaction that prevented the invasion of America in World War Two but a well-armed Citizenry. Had our nation been invaded, there is no doubt in my mind that we the people would have successfully stood our ground and taken our nation back. However, had our infrastructure suffered in the meantime, it is very easy to believe that the entire course of the war and indeed our own history would have been entirely different. The period of unparalleled growth that followed World War Two was only because that same infrastructure that provided arms and munitions for nations around the world, was still in place to be switched over to civilian, peacetime production. We were the only industrial nation in the world with any industrial capacity. The war and indeed the world would have been a much different place indeed if all the Japanese had to do was head down to the local government office and find out where the threat was.
As Conservatives, it is not only our right, but our civic duty to remind our legislators when they are crossing the line. While it may be injured, ours is still a representative republic and we need to hold those who claim to represent us accountable. There is no excuse for sitting on the sidelines and there is no room for bench-warmers in the game today. We are fighting the good fight but we cannot do it alone. The only way that we can win this fight peacefully is to once again have a well-educated citizenry. Your friends and neighbors are not going to get the real picture from the popular media any more than they are from the next reality television program. It is up to you, it is up to me, it is up to each and every one of us as Conservatives to preserve our nation by getting the word out.