We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions














 

Gun Ownership and the Constitution
by Tony Sarrecchia
6 September 2003

How to annoy the gun control lobby (hint - use the truth).


Do you want to drive a member of the anti-gun crowd into histrionics worthy of an Oscar? Tell him or her that you think all gun laws should be abolished and ownership should be based on Constitutional Law. As he starts to choke on his granola bar, tell him that everyone except felons, potential terrorists, and the mentally challenged (i.e., voluntary human shields, socialists, anyone who thinks Ralph Nader would be a good president) should be required to carry a concealed weapon. Then, if your constitutionally impaired friend can still speak, tell him the only screening that should happen at the airport is a fingerprint check; if you’re not wanted by the FBI or in violation of immigration laws, the only question the security screener should ask is if you have an extra clip in your carry-on.

He will probably say or imply that, “people in a civilized society don’t need guns." Offer “Herr Unarmed” if he would like some Bratwurst with that whine and tell him that is almost exactly what Hitler said when guns were outlawed in Germany in 1935. Point out to your confused friend that unlike Nazi Germany laws, our Bill of Rights allows, if not encourages, us to keep and bear arms. If he counters with the common sophistry of, “but that’s just for a militia, and you’re not in the military," you may have to get ugly. According to Webster, an organized militia is the US military; an unorganized militia is anyone else.

The founders of our country wrote The Bill of Rights, including the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, because they believed the Constitution needed to be stronger in its defense of an individual’s rights. Our founders are the same men who, in the Declaration of Independence, said the government exists only through the consent of the governed, i.e. us. They were not taking any chances with some pernicious government committing egregious violations of our liberties. They knew, as many today seem to have forgotten, unless you can defend your rights, you really do not have them. The founders specifically worded the 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.” Unmistakably, it is “the right of the people,” not just military members, to possess a firearm. All citizens have not only the right, but also the duty, to defend himself or herself against any oppressor, be it a punk violating your private property, or a corrupt regime violating your civil liberties.

The final sophistic argument your anti-gun friend will resort to, is that your fanatical plan would lead to anarchy and shootings in the street. Simply smile and say Kennesaw. This sleepy little suburb of Atlanta has seen its population grow from 5,200 in 1981 to over 20,000 in 2001. Yet it’s crime rate has decreased every year since 1982. What sets Kennesaw apart? It is the only community in the country where the homeowner is lawfully required to own a firearm. I will not bore you with all the statistics (especially since they are easily available by Googling “Kennesaw Crime Statistics”)—but I will share this: Kennesaw’s crime rate dropped 72% during the first ten-year period (1982-1992) of mandatory ownership. Currently, Kennesaw’s property crime rate is less than one per 1,000 residents; and there has not been murder or rape in the city since 1986. Nor has there been a case of domestic abuse, and no child has been injured by a gun during that same period. Hardly the old-west environment the anti-gun crowd wants you to believe would occur if all law-abiding citizens had guns. Kennesaw’s law has enough exemptions (including the aforementioned felons and mentally challenged individuals) to allow someone to opt out of ownership; and it’s doubtful the city would ever prosecute someone under the statute.

Ironically, the cites with the strictest gun laws, New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Detroit, account for 20 percent of all homicides in the United States. Obviously, Kennesaw is not in the same realm as those cities, but as microcosm of the greater whole, one has to wonder, if those cities had the same laws would crime decrease? Perhaps the question should be, if you were a criminal and had your choice between robbing someone who was not armed and someone who might be armed, all other things being equal, whom would you choose to rob?



Email Tony Sarrecchia

Send this Article to a Friend