A Loaded Question (by Garrett Jackson)
By Corey Thompson, filed in Garrett Jackson, General on Jun.01, 2009
***(Editor’s Note: Garrett Jackson is a Guest Columnist for “The Thirsty Quill.” He is a writer and investigative reporter for his personal blog, known as “The Lawton Town Crier” (www.lawtontowncrier.com). ‘The Quill’ appreciates Mr. Jackson’s contribution, and we look forward to publishing more of his insightful pieces in the future.)***
“A Loaded Question”
By: Garrett Jackson, Guest Columnist
“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements).” - Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353
Over the past few months, a number of Americans have been stocking up on new guns and ammunition. Stocking up, not for an enemy from a distant land, but out of fear that a basic civil right might be taken away by our own government.
Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Heller v. Washington D. C., that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual’s right to own firearms here in America. Yet even today, efforts are underway in many parts of the country to dispose of (or limit) guns. That is, to remove guns from many law-abiding citizens in the process.
It is a well-known fact that criminals do not follow laws. So we must ask, why would they turn in a gun?
Our nation was founded upon the ideal that some rights are worth fighting for, and perhaps, even dying for. America won her independence with the help of a handful of professional soldiers, but it was spurred on by the idea that every citizen had a stake in the new country, and that the King of England should not deprive the citizens of their “unalienable” rights. The right to bear arms is a civil right. The right to have a tool to defend one’s life and property is such a basic necessity, that regardless of laws, people will always choose to posses them…whether legally, or illegally.
One of the most misinterpreted facets of our Constitution is that it gives the people their rights. This idea is false. The Constitution conveys no rights to the people. Rather, it places limitations on our government and expressly tells those in power that the people have certain rights that are “endowed by their creator.”
This is illustrated with Amendment I, in which the first five words specifically state that “Congress shall make no law…” It does not simply say that the people shall have “the right to free speech,” as many would believe.
This is the true genius of our founding fathers. In other words, government should be limited, and ultimately, it exists only at the pleasure of the governed.
So let us, for a moment, discuss the Second Amendment. It states, “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.” Clearly, it shows that the people have the right to arms. It does not say that the government of the United States gives the people the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment implies that the peoples’ right to “bear arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, the government cannot take away, nor deny, our right to arms.
Gun control advocates would have us believe that if we get rid of all guns, violent crime rates will decrease. Yet, let’s examine “Gun Free Zones,” such as schools. The basic premise is that if we have areas totally void of guns, our children will be safe. With the Columbine High School tragedy, along with the massacre at Virginia Tech, one must question why “Gun Free Zones” seem to be the target of such violence? The sad reality is that in most cases, those who obey the laws ultimately turn out to be the victims.
Ask yourself, when was the last shooting at an NRA convention? When the people are disarmed, they will become victims. The criminals in our society have no respect for life, much less a law intended to limit their access to a deadly weapon.
Why do the people need guns? Simple: seconds count…and the police are often minutes away.
Guns do not kill people, just like pencils do not misspell words.
***(Editor’s Note: Garrett Jackson is a Guest Columnist for “The Thirsty Quill.” He is a writer and investigative reporter for his personal blog, known as “The Lawton Town Crier” (www.lawtontowncrier.com). ‘The Quill’ appreciates Mr. Jackson’s contribution, and we look forward to publishing more of his insightful pieces in the future.)***
June 1st, 2009 on 10:06 am
Fantastic post Garrett, I agree with what you are saying. However, I believe that the time for the members of the NRA or any other pro-gun group, who have sat idly by while witnessing Straw purchases of semi, to fully automatic weapons needs to end. In the past such a stand within these groups would likely mean that they were standing up for gun control and that they stood opposite of the views and principles of the 2nd amendment, running the risk of being considered treasonous. No matter what side of the issue we stand on none of us can admire that we as a nation account for over 90% of the ammunition used to control Mexican drug trafficking and the documentation is long in showing that Mexican officials can no longer compete with the arsenal that our nation is arming the traffickers with.
That being said, I think these organizations need to get past the politics of what there intentions may be perceived to be with in there own groups and do what is right for our Country and our neighboring Mexico. Gun control will never be a reality in America and there will always be collateral damage either way. We need people who stand up for the rights to confront the brutal facts and in many ways self govern the laws that they so vehemently defend.
June 1st, 2009 on 11:08 am
I am personally not a gun supporter. If I was in the market to purchase a gun, I would buy a non-lethal weapon such as a stun gun. Many modern stun guns have the ability to stun an individual up to 50 feet away.
However, I strongly oppose any bill that severely regulates and limits gun ownership in America. In cities such as Austin and Dallas where guns laws are quite relaxed, violent crime, murders, and manslaughter are significantly lower than cities of comparable size with stricter gun laws such as Baltimore and Philadelphia.
As weird as it sounds, the best way to solve crime, is with the very weapon that “causes” it.
June 1st, 2009 on 10:46 pm
I appreciate the comments that have been posted.
Garrett
June 2nd, 2009 on 2:20 pm
“Ask yourself, when was the last shooting at an NRA convention?”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27399337/
A boy of 8 years old while under adult supervision at a gun show kills himself under the force of the recoiling gun. The gun flung back and shot the young child in his head. While not an NRA convention, gun control laws, in my opinion, are meant for people as stupid as this.
Is there a reason this child was allowed to be firing an uzi? Did it help him keep criminals at bay? Gun control laws are not meant to stop people from protecting themselves. Their intent is to regulate the types of guns and the people who can use them.
As for the whole “criminals still have guns” argument, of course criminals are still going to have guns. Criminals will always be dangerous, but that doesn’t mean I have to have an assault rifle in my closet.
I have no qualms with people owning guns; being a new homeowner, I have a gun. However, the regulation of weapons available to average citizens is necessary to prevent idiocies like the one linked to above.
“In cities such as Austin and Dallas where guns laws are quite relaxed, violent crime, murders, and manslaughter are significantly lower than cities of comparable size with stricter gun laws such as Baltimore and Philadelphia.”
To assume that those statistics are realized by the fact that control laws are more lax is ridiculous. Texas prisons are obscenely over crowded. take a look at these statistics:
http://www.nicic.org/features/statestats/?State=TX
It says that the crime rate was 19% higher than the national average and property crimes account for 89% of the incidents, which is 21% higher than the national average. As for their incarceration rate, Texas has a rate 33% higher than than the national average of incarcerated adults per 100,000″
If they do have a problem with people in those cities, it seems Texas just ops to lock those people up and not give them parole, rather than diligent citizens taking to the streets and fighting crime while brandishing their 2nd amendment rights.
June 2nd, 2009 on 11:32 pm
Steve,
Would you mind posting this in the forums? It seems like that would be the proper venue to further this discussion.
Garrett
June 22nd, 2009 on 1:26 pm
As with all statistics, a number undefined can sometimes be misleading. Please allow me some defense of my State.
The Texas prison population, per capita, is very high. This is due in part to prisons who take undesirables from other states, and also that we really do send people to jail here. So quote that statistic with pride, because our jails hold persons that have wronged others- perhaps even in your community. Texans aren’t more likely to be incarcerated or more likely to commit a crime. We’re just very hospitable.
Secondly, property crime statistics are not specific to home invasion; it includes such things as vandalism, car burglary (which is the most common property crime in Texas) as well as non-felony, non-weapon related crimes. Criminals attack vacant cars in Texas because it’s just about all they have. Home invasions are rare, especially at night when people are more likely home. Aggravated assault, rape, and all measures of violent crime against people has been steadily falling since Right to Carry was approved in Texas, and has seen continued declines in the last 18 months since “Castle Doctrine” mandates that no Texan has a duty to retreat, even related to rendering assistance to another person.
What this means is that you’re statistically safer in my State, and in my city (Dallas) even if you and your family choose to have no means to defend yourselves simply because the thugs who are around know that not only do I have the right to defend myself, but that I have the right to defend you. I’d even defend Andy, who has his information so wrong on Mexican Cartels. Even the mainstream media has stopped reporting the “90%” thing because, well, in technical terms, it is a lie.
We’ve been hearing a lot lately about government’s “teeth” with regulation and policy. We need “common sense” gun laws with “teeth.” A not often used quotation of Washington is more like my particular opinion when he says that “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”
The American people’s liberty teeth.
Good post Garrett.
From my cold, dead hands.
ST
June 22nd, 2009 on 4:18 pm
Thank you Scott, I appreciate your willingness to defend (even me) with force. Speaking of the Force, I have always sort of agreed with Yoda, that you find what you bring into the journey. That being said I know bad things happen to good people and for that I am always saddened.
As far as the 90% deal. You are right. In fact I have read several reports and the only thing I can say for sure is that there may not be an accurate statistic on this subject available anywhere. The 17% that Faux News is reporting is also reported as invalid.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/04/barack-obama-gun.html
My point is still the same and that is that people on the right, involved with these Pro Gun groups, should step up and self govern to win the confidence of the folks on the other side who are not against guns just the misuse of them. Thanks again
June 23rd, 2009 on 11:08 am
I’ll grant your point. However, using the picture in your referenced article as a case in point of guns “seized” from cartel crime, I have poured over polymer grips to match the handgun to anything made in the US. I cannot do so. Since there is no slide on the grip, it’s basically a piece of plastic. That doesn’t pass the test, because the firearm, by my accounts is untraceable. Let’s toss the handgun out and turn to the remainder…
Of the remaining 5 firearms, they are all easily traced. 3 are AK-47’s. These are not manufactured in the US. The other 2 rifles I identify as M-4’s- a carbine version of the M16. Also important to note is that they seem to be in a standard government-issue set up. These are manufactured in the US, however, civilian models do not typically come in the government configuration, they can, but most firearms shops I frequent (and I do frequent several) would not likely have such a configuration. As after-market components are not easily mounted to the fore end nor are optics easily mounted on the carry handle.
Therefore, 3 of 5 are obviously not American firearms. That leaves 40% of the displayed arms manufactured in the US. But if the remaining 40% are government-issue M4’s (which could be clarified by the presence of an auto/single shot select lever- and I’d bet you a steak dinner these two have ‘em) these rifles were purchased by the Mexican government from the US government and subsequently purchased from/stolen by/lost to Mexican cartels. One way, then, to understand this is that 40% of the firearms did come from the US. Further investigation suggests that neither was purchased in a gun shop in the US by a straw buyer. That would leave 0% of the displayed weapons to have anything to do with the Second Amendment, the NRA, Pro Gun groups, Anti Gun groups or any other group, straw buyers, or complex scheme of gun running. Leaving 100% of displayed firearms in Mexico courtesy of politicians involved in international arms trades and 0% related in any way to gun laws in the United States.
But seriously, what could actual facts have to do with anything?
June 23rd, 2009 on 4:33 pm
Careful with that Steak Dinner bet. You don’t want PETA after you. They are trying to seize the moment since the President was filmed murdering a fly during an interview last week
Straw Purchases are not a fantasy dreamed up by Washington Insiders who dream of disarming an impotent national constituency. They are a reality and not just a problem in Mexico (or in your study) the fantasy of Mexico’s American gun use.
Anywho, you acknowledged my point; that the only effective way to make any progress in this is for those who defend, this most sacred of all amendments, to self govern and eventually cut down drastically the mis-use, and certainly preventable tragedies such misuse can create.
June 23rd, 2009 on 7:02 pm
Meat is murder. Tasty, tasty, murder.