We are free by the design of our maker, not of government nor of neighbors expressing otherwise. I care not about those who would rather live in servitude than fight for the freedom many millions of us hold dear. They bask in complacency and are not a threat to my freedom. (Addendum: Since I wrote this I have come to realize it is the very complacency of millions who are condemning us all to servitude to the government. Granted, it is not a direct threat but the results are the same.)

But, there are those who either do not think, or do not comprehend simple English, or respond to tyranny for their own selfish reasons, that try to affect what is not theirs to affect - the unalienable rights, self-evident rights of the individual. These people are a different story and, at the present time, the most serious threat to freedom in that they are doing exactly as the federal government wants concerning the most important amendment protecting all rights of The People.

I refer, of course, to the right to keep and bear arms. If it were not a right of the individual, why was the 2nd Amendment added to the Constitution along with the other nine clauses in the �Bill of Rights?� If not necessary to document this right clearly, would not the clauses of Article 1, Section 8, referring to the clauses of military power given Congress, have sufficed for our protection? Let us briefly consider the myth that the "militia" is not the people.

George Mason (during Virginia�s Convention to Ratify the Constitution - 1788) had this to say: �I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.�

And, from Samuel Adams during Massachusett�s Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788): �...The said Constitution be never construed ...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.�

Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, Richard Henry Lee stated it this way: �A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves ... To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms...�.

And, Thomas Jefferson: �The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in their government.�

And, in the same line of thought, James Madison in The Federalist 46 (1788), had this to say: �Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation.�

These men knew exactly what they intended with the 2nd Amendment and worded it so only an idiot could misinterpret it. The amendment 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.� (My emphasis)

Thus, those who framed and ratified the Constitution and its amendments didn�t misunderstand the absolute necessity of a free State (meaning the state of being free) depending on the whole of the people being armed.

And, yet, there are those who try to re-write the Constitution. Mark Pitcavage of the Ohio State University�s History Department, posted in 1995 a historical overview of the U.S. Militia and stated an �armed populace� is a myth. Well, Pitcavage, I will believe the framer�s of the Constitution, not some person trying to create their own little myths based on misinterpretations of the writings of a few of the greatest men known in the battle for freedom.

Now, we are getting to the meat of the current controversy concerning the people�s rights vs the government�s bogus war against crime. In its attempts to remove firearms from citizens, the US Government attempts to blame crime on free ownership and bearing of arms. In 1775, well in advance of extreme government intrusion on rights, Thomas Paine, had this to say in �Thoughts on Defensive War�: �Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property ... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.�

Then, John Adams, in regards to personal self-defense: �Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense.� Note: He said �...at individual discretion ...�, not at the discretion of any government authority.

Cesare Beccaria, an Italian born aristocrat, formed a society with two friends called the �Academy of Fists� which was �...dedicated to waging relentless war against economic disorder, bureaucratic petty tyranny, religious narrow-mindedness, and intellectual pedantry (pretension - had to look up �pedantry�).�

Beccaria wrote �On Crimes and Punishments� (1764), a treatise widely accepted, including by Katherine the Great, Maria Theresa of Austria-Hungary, and quoted by Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams. The treatise was printed in many languages and influenced world wide establishment of and reforming of the existing penal system. The treatise is influential to the degree that he is known as the father of classical criminal theory.

This one great published work by Beccaria also influenced the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights. In the treatise, Beccaria wrote:

�Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage them to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.�

So, I had to ask - who is right in this war between the government and the rights of the American people? Are organizations such as Million Mom March (MMM - an active gun control group) misled by conjecture and/or intentional ignoring of facts meant to manipulate otherwise sane, intelligent people?

To begin, the basic premise of anti-gun individuals and organizations is that safety will increase as firearms become more controlled. My contention is that this reasoning is as false as saying the sun rises in the West.

To determine who is right, we can turn to facts, not those printed by the government or its media puppets but the reported facts from reporting law enforcement agencies to the Department of Justice. These facts are available in actual numbers in The FBI�s Uniform Crime Reports. The reporting of crimes in numbers rather than in percentages of increases or decreases is important as the latter can be quite misleading and easily manipulated.

In testing my belief, Washington, District of Columbia, which has the most stringent firearm control (also, the most armed body guards and law enforcement organizations (3600 on the Metro PD for a population of just over 500,000, and, of course, many other armed government agencies, including military troops at the ready), was compared to a state without concealed carry, Missouri (my state), and Vermont, which allows carrying a firearm as long as the intent isn�t to commit a crime, were compared.

In other words, the continuum from being nearly within the Constitution (Vermont - no permit needed), partially observing the 2nd Amendment (Missouri), to not paying much of any attention to the Constitution (District of Columbia).

Here are the basics of the District of Columbia�s laws on firearms. No handgun may be possessed unless it was registered by 1977. Many rifles and pistols are defined, quite wrongly, as machine guns and are prohibited. Firearms kept at a business may be kept operable but firearms kept at home must be disassembled and are unusable for self-protection.

Thus, firearms for self-protection by law-abiding citizens are effectively done away with. This is completely contrary to the Constitution but - one must remember the Constitution is essentially an agreement the States made to incorporate the US Government (the District of Columbia) to carry out specific duties.

Within United State's jurisdiction, meaning the District of Columbia, possessions, and federal property, the US Government does not have to answer to the Constitution concerning the 2nd Amendment. This has been upheld by the District of Columbia�s Court of Appeals.

Are the stricter laws in D.C. effective? Let�s look at rapes first (due to MMM using emotions rather than facts to mislead people across the nation).

(Note: Figures are per 100,000 of population and rounded to the nearest whole number.) (Also, at this point, I must apologize. I don't know how to make spaces in a line or set up a chart using HTML. So, bear with me as I try to make the findings clear.)

In 1994, women in the District of Columbia suffered 44 RAPES, women in Missouri - 37; and women in Vermont - 28.

In 1998, RAPES in the District of Columbia numbered 36, while Missouri had 27, and Vermont - 24.

The average number of rapes per year in the threee areas for the five-year period were: District of Columbia - 48; the State of Missouri - 31; and the State of Vermont - 27.

One can easily see the most rapes occur in the nation�s capitol and the least in the State of Vermont. In the most civilian firearm controlled area, which also has the greatest number of armed law enforcement, body guards, and armed federal agents (secret service, FBI, DEA, and so on), a woman has by far a greater chance of being raped in the nation's capitol than in a state with minimal control - Vermont.

Another idea being spread by the myth mongers against handguns and other firearms is that murders will increase. Often people involved as anti-gun activists will give statistics on murder and mislead by NOT stating that all murders were included regardless of method, not just those by the use of firearms. I will tell you the below figures do include all murders regardless of the method.

In the District of Columbia in 1994, there were (Again, these figures are per 100,000 of population>) 70 Murders; in Missouri - 11; and, in Vermont - 1.

In 1998, there were 50 murders in the capitol, 7 in Missouri, and 2 in Vermont.

The five-year averages were: District of Columbia - 63; Missouri - 8; and, Vermont - 2.

Only the blind, illiterate, or stupid cannot put 2 and 2 together concerning murder. The figures clearly support the fact that the fewer firearms there are in the hands of law-abiding citizens, the greater the murder rate. It increases by leaps and bounds.

In the case of the nation�s capitol, remember - in armed law enforcement per square mile, Washington, D.C. has the highest ratio (36 officers per square mile). Likewise, in number of citizens per officer, it has the lowest - 149 citizens per officer in the Metro police alone. This doesn�t count the transit police and all the other armed government agents. To put this in perspective, the Kansas City Missouri Police Department has less than four officers per square mile of responsibility and only one officer per 667 people.

Let�s take a look at robbery and assault, the remaining two categories considered as �violent� crimes. People contend that law enforcement can protect us and our property against the criminal element if only law enforcement has guns. Funny, though, isn�t it, that many of those saying it have armed guards or government armed agencies protecting them 24 hours a day.

Realizing that statistics aren�t necessarily the most exciting information to read, let�s just look at the five-year averages for the two categories. Again, the figures are based on per 100,000 of population.

During the five-year period, the District of Columbia had 1013 Robberies; Missouri had 405; while Vermont checked in with a whopping 13.

In regards to Assaults, the District of Columbia averaged 1183 per 100,000; Missouri - 924; and, Vermont - (shades of pre-government Constitution abuses) 72.

One of the last statistics to look at is the average cases of violent crimes from 1990 to 1998 in the three areas since this has been the time period during which greater numbers of citizens have become aware of the controversy. Again, the figures are based on per 100,000 of population.

To reiterate, violent crimes include rape, murder, robbery, and aggravated assault. The District of Columbia during this time period averaged 2464 per year; Missouri - 677; and - Vermont - 114 per year.

Easily seen is the fact that, although populations are fairly close between Vermont and the District, a person is over 20 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in the District of Columbia that in Vermont.

In comparing to Missouri, one is almost four (4) times as likely to be attacked in the nation�s capitol, home of virtually no firearms for protection and called the �Murder capital of the world� by many.

Last is what has happened since firearm control has become increasingly stringent across the nation, from 1960 to 1998. The most controlling laws, even though unconstitutional in the 50 States, have been legislated during my lifetime or supposedly enforced against law-abiding citizens. The question is, though, do stringent laws do anything more than prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their freedom (should it come to that)?

The above figures dispel the myth that firearm control on law-abiding citizens decreases violent crime. I state �on law-abiding citizens� because it doesn�t matter if every firearm was taken - criminals would still have them. Laws only affect those who obey the laws to begin with. That is why criminals are called criminals. One can with certainty state and prove beyond a shadow of doubt that crime has increased as firearm control has increased.

Conversely, the many states (43) which now have concealed carry laws have had greater drops in crime than those without. The figures clearly show the less controlled guns are, the less crime there is. One can easily see from the comparisons made that this is the case. It is an indisputable fact as indicated by the FBI�s Uniform Crime Reports.

Also, in review, law-abiding citizens are the militia as spoken of by the founders of this nation and have the unalienable right to provide themselves with any weapon that exists in order to protect themselves and their freedom. That is quite clear to anyone who can read and interpret the English language.

Therefore, the conclusion is obvious. If the federal government wants to indeed control crime, it is imperative that every citizen be able to defend themselves. The US Government must admit to the American people that it hasn�t any power to legislate gun laws and apply those laws to the many States. That is a constitutional fact.

On the website of the Metropolitan Police Department of the nation�s capitol, Chief Charles H. Ramsey had this to say: �As your chief, I am committed to making the District of Columbia the safest major city in America - bar none."

Well, Chief, if this is indeed your goal, you had best give every law-abiding citizen a loaded firearm. Otherwise, your goal is a pipedream.

Ladies in MMM and other anti-gun groups. You are being duped by people with hidden agendas, specifically the federal government and its media puppets. If you want to decrease violent crimes against women, children, men, dogs and cats, you had best arm yourselves. There isn�t any better protection as the most heavily policed area associated with this nation clearly, indisputably, without a doubt, clearly proves the value of an armed citizenry in crime prevention.

College professors who believe their analyses concerning the 2nd Amendment and who regularly manipulate the interpretations of factual stats in order to prove their inaccurate conclusions - stay in the library or wherever and try to see the importance of collecting facts and presenting the facts in an unbiased manner, even if they disagree with your hypothesis.

Mainstream media. In two words, YOU STINK. Don�t you realize the most important function of the media is to present the truth? Rather than conveying the importance of the millions of validated cases in which crimes are prevented by armed law-abiding citizens, you instead focus on the few cases in which mentally disturbed people use handguns to kill. Or the number of accidental shootings which often include suicides as you well know. Or, murder disguised as an �accident. Or, shootings of cops by criminals but not the shooting of innocents by cops or government terrorists illegally operating against the citizens of this nation. Of this, Waco is a prime example.

All of the above conveniently forget the huge number of crimes that are prevented simply because a criminal doesn�t know what homes have loaded, ready-to-use weapons in them. Or by not knowing who might have a weapon in their vehicle as they travel. Or, in concealed carry states, who might be carrying. This figure could easily be in the tens of millions annually.

My God, People, for once open your minds to the TRUTH and demand the truth. The fact is that the District of Columbia is one of the most crime infested areas that has ever existed in this nation. Pay close attention to the following. From 1960 to the present, crime in D.C. increased three-fold. States have had greater apparent increases but this is because crime in D.C. in 1960 was already at the pace of crime in Missouri in 1998 (D.C. in 1960 - violent crimes per 100,000 - 553.7 while Missouri in 1998 had 555.7 violent crimes per 100,000 in 1998). In other words, it took nearly four decades of unconstitutional laws for Missouri�s violent crime rate to catch up to D.C.�s 1960 rate.

In comparison to Vermont, the District of Columbia , which has had stringently controlled firearms prior to the 60�s, had five (5) times the number of violent crimes in 1960 (553.7) as Vermont did in 1998 (and 1997 and so on). Vermont for the last ten years ran just a little over a 100 violent crimes per 100,000 of population.

Now, however, States which have passed concealed carry laws have crime decreasing at a more rapid rate than States which do not have concealed carry. Thus, concerning this, it is imperative that every law-abiding citizen be able to buy any arms he desires with all the ammunition he wants. It must be unrestricted as supported by the Constitution and declared not under the jurisdiction of the federal and states' governments.

That is the best and only answer to controlling crime. Analyses to the contrary present myths in the form of false information, distorted information, fabrications, and assuredly not information relying on the truth.

Concerning life-and-death situations and my property, I want the TRUTH, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth from government and I want the Constitution obeyed as it is written.

=======================================================

Having My Say
Letters And Essays
1999 Articles
2000 Articles
2001 Articles

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws