Obama Wants To Take Your Guns

January 3, 2013

- See all 8 of my articles

“The Regulars Are Coming Out!”

From October 1774 through April 1775 the American Colonies were preparing for the worst. Americans formed companies, bought arms, stored up powder, and prepared for war if it was to come to that. Much effort was made to avoid more conflict but the British rejected the grievances of the colonies.

Governors loyal to the British reported the preparations but were unable to do anything about it. On April 18 1775 General Gage, commander-in-chief of British forces in the American Colonies, sent 800 soldiers 18 miles from Boston to Concord to confiscate American guns, ammo, and stores. Dr Samuel Prescott said “the regulars are coming out!” Then Paul Revere, William Dawes, and Dr. Samuel Prescott spread the word across the countryside. This is the famous ride of Paul Revere.

It’s interesting that the ride of Paul Revere is so famous but the gun control aspect of the events is almost never told. England tried several times to confiscate guns and also banned the importation of powder to the colonies among other things. This is how tyranny behaves; this is how the Obama administration is behaving. This is why we have the Second Amendment.

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.

The Second Amendment has two clauses. The first clause is about the militia. A militia is to be well regulated. The word “regulated” is often misinterpreted and wrongfully applied. If we look at Federalist Paper 29 it says:

…To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia…

Obviously ‘well-regulated’ doesn’t mean limited or restricted but it means a ‘degree of perfection’.

The second clause of the Second Amendment is about “the people”. This is the same group referred to in the First Amendment. The purpose is to guarantee the voluntary arming of citizens. The arming of citizens “shall not be infringed”. The right to bear those arms “shall not be infringed”. Federalist Paper 46 says:

…To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves…

Obviously citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, any arms the militia has. The framers of the constitution certainly intended for an armed citizenry and for it to act as an opposition to the militia if tyranny threatens our country. I’ve heard from many people that some guns only purpose is to kill. My answer is “so?” The Second Amendment isn’t about less-than-lethal weapons and it’s not about hunting either. It’s only about defending ourselves and our nation with the most lethal arms and ammunition we can afford.

Should citizens have so-called military type rifles? According to the Second Amendment and Federalist Papers the answer is yes. Realistically our military uses nearly every type of arms available to civilians. This includes shotguns, handguns, hunting rifles (Remington 700, etc), and even a hugely popular hunting rifle the Ruger 10/22. Obama’s big push to ban guns is a violation of our constitutional rights. Any gun ban is unconstitutional and disrupts the checks and balances intended by the constitution.

What gain could there be from a gun ban? Studies have shown that guns are used around 2 million times a year in self-defense. The harm a gun ban would cause far outweighs any benefit. The CDC lists guns 25th cause of death in America. Swimming pools, bicycles, and crossing the street are more dangerous than guns. FBI statistics show that more people are killed with knives than rifles like the one used at Sand Hook Elementary in Newtown Connecticut. FBI statistics show that more people are killed by fists and feet than by rifles. Nothing good comes from any gun ban. We have no reason to trust an administration that arms the drug cartel and al-Qaeda but aspires to disarm the People. Quite possibly a severe restriction of our rights might have the same effect as it did in 1775.

 

11 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. kosmo
    Jan 03, 2013 @ 08:33:23

    It seems that the founding fathers were mostly concerned about the relationship of government vs. people when it came to guns.

    If you think about it, some of the crimes that occur today couldn’t have been imagined by them. A lone gunman killing 27 innocent people with a gun? Preposterous. If the shooter were able to reload his musket quickly and fire four shots per minute, it would take almost seven minutes to fire 27 shots – and the pause between shots would give a group time to rush the gunman while he was reloading.

    With today’s weapons, one armed person can exercise control over a substantial group of unarmed people. Actually, a lone gunman can even exercise control over a large group of people that contains some armed people, because they have to focus on a particular target and attempt to limit collateral damage while he can simply fire indiscriminately.

    I think the majority of people would want law abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves while keeping guns away from criminals – but it’s difficult to find a solution that works for both scenarios.

    A couple of thoughts on the crime stats:

    I also saw a category of “unknown firearm”. I would expect rifles to make up a significantly higher percentage of this group than the “known firearm” category. Why? Because the ability to fire from a distance increases the likelihood that the shooter can flee the scene without anyone seeing him. This is less likely with a handgun due to a shorter range. Granted, I’m not a gun expert and may be oversimplifying – and even if it’s quite a bit higher in the unknown category, it still may be a relative blip.

    I think also it’s important to separate murders into those that might possibly be prevented by restricting access to particular weapons. A very large number of murders are within a family. These are going to be difficult to prevent simply be restricting access to particular weapons. If a guy wants to kill his wife and a gun isn’t nearby, there are a myriad of other items around the house that can do the job – a butcher knife, nine iron, frying pan, poison, etc. There’s simply too much opportunity over a period of time.

    However, there is also the group of crime committed by strangers, such as the theater shootings in Colorado and the school shooting in Connecticut. These attackers may have still carried out their attacks with substitute weapons, but those weapons would likely have resulted in far fewer deaths. Of course, the mass shootings as a whole make up a tiny percentage of all murders in the US.

    Reply

  2. Lazy Man and Money
    Jan 03, 2013 @ 09:43:22

    I’m with Kosmo on this one…

    I think in the 1770s the revolutionists were pretty focused on trying to be independent from a country a very large ocean away… taxation without representation… and all that.

    I don’t see a parallel today, except for maybe parts of Texas wanting to secede. I don’t feel they are very close to declaring war on the Washington. I would turn your “What gain could there be from a gun ban?” and say, “What gain would there be in having equal militia weaponry in today’s society?” Hey the military has nuclear weapons, so let’s let people have them too because we have to be equal.

    Maybe we shouldn’t blindly assume that the 2nd Amendment is the right way to do things in today’s society. There was a 3/5s compromise back in the day and we don’t use that. Clearly, the Founding Fathers are fallible. Though I wouldn’t call an outdated clause to be an error on their part. They can only work with information that they have available and they didn’t have information on today’s society.

    I love when people quote things like: “Swimming pools, bicycles, and crossing the street are more dangerous than guns.” How many lives do swimming pools save with heat stroke? I’m sure that people get killed on bicycles and crossing the street, but these acts do not kill others. (Maybe someone died in a collision with a bike.) Just because a death happens during these acts, so not make them the cause of the death. Might as well put hospitals on the list of dangerous things too since people get killed in them.

    These terrible analogies really weaken your argument tremendously.

    Reply

  3. No One in Particular
    Jan 03, 2013 @ 17:12:26

    Studies have shown that guns are used around 2 million times a year in self-defense.

    Citation?

    FBI statistics show that more people are killed with knives than rifles like the one used at Sand Hook Elementary in Newtown Connecticut. FBI statistics show that more people are killed by fists and feet than by rifles.

    Citations? The only thing I can find in the FBI stats is that guns are used more often in assaults and far more often in rapes than knives. (Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl15.xls)

    Oh, sorry, did find a table on use of firearms versus other weapons in murder. It does not support your statement. On the contrary, firearms appear to be used in more than 50% of murders in most states, with a few odd, small number statistic type exceptions. (Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20)

    Reply

  4. No One in Particular
    Jan 03, 2013 @ 17:19:21

    Oh, and the government is not in the least bit scared of your little guns. They have tanks, drones, and nukes. If they wanted your guns, they’d come get them and anyone saying “you’ll have to pry it away from my cold, dead fingers” would find that the government was not adverse to meeting those conditions.The movement to ban assault rifles is a grass roots movement that the politicians are signing on to only very reluctantly. They’d much rather you stayed home cleaning your gun and feeling safe while they took your vote away–which, you may have noticed, they are trying to do with the various state voter suppression acts. Your vote scares them. Your gun…not so much.

    Reply

  5. kosmo
    Jan 03, 2013 @ 19:03:27

    @ No One – Actually, both you and Peter are correct. You are talking about firearms as whole; he is talking specifically about rifles (for which there is a separate column in that table).

    Reply

  6. Monado
    Jan 03, 2013 @ 23:29:03

    In the 1770s, there was no standing army. In the 1790s, there was no standing army. Thus the government needed to be able to call on a ‘well-regulated militia’ to defend the colonies and newly formed states. That is not the case today, when the U.S. is the most militarized first-world country.

    So let’s not take them away. Let’s regulate them, starting with a background check, a waiting period, and an informational video showing victims of murder, suicide, and accidental shooting. Let us have a regulation that guns must be transported unloaded, in carrying cases, so that men won’t accidentally shoot their sons in gun-store parking lots. Let’s mandate that guns must be kept in a locked case or cabinet and ammunition must be kept in a different locked case. Let us reduce the chance of accidental or impulsive gun violence. Five hundred children a year are killed by guns. If that was by mountain lions, do you think that mountain lions would be allowed to roam even the tiny territories they still inhabit? Let us do some risk reduction.

    Reply

  7. Peter Shaw
    Jan 04, 2013 @ 14:03:06

    @No One in Particular,
    The 2 million lives saved I referenced is work done by Professor John Lott at the University of Chicago which is well known and peer reviewed. It was published in a book called “More Guns Less Crime”. I thought it was common knowledge. The point is to that the detriment of gun control far outweighs any gain in reduction in gun violence. Violence of all kinds will increase with gun control which has been experienced in England and Australia.

    @Kosmo,
    I see what you’re saying about rifles and shooting longer distances. The skill required to hit a moving target, compensating for wind drift, and compensating for bullet drop at different distances takes more time, work, and practice than 99.999% of criminals are willing to do. Also if we take into account that the Newtown shooter had ten round magazines as per Conneticut law and the distances he was shooting he could have done the same damage with a pistol.

    @Mondo,
    Your position on “regulate” is exactly the misinformation I addressed in my article. In addition to the US Constitution; state and federal laws also prove that there is a difference between military, militia, and citizens. Iowa Code 29A is a good example. The states can have well-regulated militias, but you can not limit, restrict, or “infringe” on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Many of the laws regarding transportation of firearms is already on the books. I’m all for instant background checks to make sure criminals don’t buy guns. The problem is tens of thousands of people are rejected each year during those background checks and are not prosecuted.

    Criminals tying to buy guns is a felony but the government doesn’t do anything about it. Crazy people trying to buy guns are never investigated. When shootings happen it makes no sense to blame society for the actions of homicidal maniacs or the inaction of law enforcement.

    Reply

  8. Peter Shaw
    Jan 04, 2013 @ 14:39:32

    Sorry, my first comment was directed at Lazy Man not No One in Particular. There is much evidence that the Second Amendment is the right way to do it which is what Prof. Lott was showing. No one believes the US military will nuke their own country so that’s a silly arguement. The verg of war or the rise of a tyrant is not the time to decide to buy guns, ammo, and getting familiar with their usage. An armed citizenry is that check-and-balance refered to in Federalist Paper #46 which is of no use unless “the people” continually excercise their rights.

    The founding fathers or signers of the US Constitution did’nt create the 3/5th compromise. The Bill of Rights has never been altered, amendended, or rescinded. The Bill of Rights was done right.

    When it comes to mortality and cause of death relating to human activity the swimming pool and bicycle rates of death certainly put things in proper perspective. Americans have enough guns to arm every man, woman, and child twice yet it is safer than cars that do kill others. One drunk driver killed 27 and injured 34 in a single accident but no one has called for limiting the possession of beer.

    If lives and safety is truly our motive then we should look elsewhere. There is a political agenda at work feeding off of the Newtown trajedy that has nothing to do with reducing violence.

    Reply

  9. Lazy Man and Money
    Jan 05, 2013 @ 10:43:45

    I’m sure that John Lott’s work doesn’t qualify as “common knowledge.” In fact after doing a little research on him, it seems like a book that criticizes his work, Freakonomics, is far closer to common knowledge.

    I’m also pretty skeptical of anyone who has written books such as: “Debacle: Obama’s War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future” and “At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge?”

    It’s not surprising that Lott has also found a way to show that “liberalization of abortion laws increased murder rates by around about 0.5 to 7 percent.”

    Clearly Lott comes to the game with an agenda. I can’t begin to count the number of conversations I’ve had with Kosmo about how statistics are often manipulated to fit an agenda.

    And here’s a well-cited gem on Lott’s Wikipedia page: “Lott stated that ‘women’s suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise.'”

    If that was made from someone who supports liberal views, I’m sure not too many people would have a problem with it. However, when it comes from a conservative it comes across as extremely sexist.

    I wasn’t suggesting that the United States was going to nuke itself. The point was that it is silly to think that everyone should have access to equal resources to fight the government. If you are trying to make this argument, and it seems you are, you have to concede that you are also saying that everyone in America should have access to nukes.

    I’m using nukes as an extreme example to make a point. However, if you don’t like that as an example, let’s just use a weapon that would blow up a single city or a square mile of area. Clearly the US military has access to these, so everyone should have access to them too for protection against the military.

    The check-and-balance with the US government military is already lost due to technological advances. A well regulated Militia is no longer able to provide security of a free State (to use some of the language in the Second Amendment to make my point).

    History is not my strong suit, but “The three-fifths ratio was not a new concept. It originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation.” (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise#Background) Also: “A further subset is the group that signed the Articles of Confederation.” is from the Wikipedia article on the Founding Fathers. Don’t try to get by the point by arguing a technicality.

    There are things that were done by the people forming this country that were no longer necessary or practical because society has changed. When this happens it is prudent to reassess laws and not take them as immutable just because they were developed nearly 250 years ago.

    People don’t get rid of cars because the vast benefit as transportation outweighs the damage done by the relatively few accidents they cause. Now you can say that guns used as defense is a benefit that outweighs their banishment, but it is a circular argument, since guns are the thing that they are typically being defended against. (It’s like each country getting nukes for defense because another country has nukes. Better to just get everyone to disable all nukes before some crazed leader in a third-world country ends the earth by firing his nukes.)

    You make a good case about limiting beer. Guess what? We’ve tried that and it didn’t work out that well. The solution for that would be to have a breathalyzer test necessary to start a car. Such technology exists today. I don’t know why it isn’t standard in every car, though I imagine the alcohol beverage people probably campaigns very hard against it. In any case, it is an easy problem to solve and people can enjoy both actively use beer and cars daily in productive ways responsibly (this is where I note that beer has been shown to have numerous health benefits in moderation).

    It’s strange that you think there’s a political agenda at work feeding off of Newtown, yet you cite people like John Lott whose occupation is a political commentator. They say that to a carpenter whose only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Perhaps its time to read articles and books from people who don’t have such obvious political agendas.

    Reply

  10. Zarberg
    Jan 10, 2013 @ 11:39:45

    Is the title meant to be trolling? I’ve seen zero evidence that Obama wants to “take your guns” – on the contrary, he actually EXPANDED gun rights in his first term.

    Reply

  11. kosmo
    Jan 12, 2013 @ 00:41:20

    @ Zarberg – I create many of the titles for the articles, based on the content. I created the title for this particular article.

    Reply

Leave a Reply