As the U.S. Supreme Court considers the matter of “gun control” in the District of Columbia, many Americans understand that the issue is about “control” not “guns.”
It’s no secret that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens threaten only those seeking control over those citizens, be they criminal or over-reaching government. It’s also no secret that no law will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don’t care what any law says.
Is there a message hidden in the fact that the cities with the strongest gun control laws also have the highest violent crime rates in our nation?
The District of Columbia itself, along with a few other well-known bastions of liberal logic like New York City, which have the strongest gun control laws in the country, also still have the highest violent crime rates in the country. Taking guns away from their citizens has done nothing to discourage the criminals. It might even encourage criminal activity, or so the stats would indicate.
How can one seriously claim that taking guns away from law abiding citizens will in any way make the community safer, when all the statistics say quite the opposite? Is it coincidence or poetic justice that the most “controlled” cities in the country are also the most dangerous?
The Fundamental Debate
The Framers of the Constitution and the colonies that ratified simply said “
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.” But what did they mean?
Liberals, who seek “control” over the people by way of “control” over their right to bear arms, hang their hat on this section of the Second Amendment, “
A well regulated Militia,” claiming that the right to own and bear arms is restricted to only a “well regulated militia,” meaning the government.
Conservatives who seek to conserve and preserve the highest degree of freedom among law abiding citizens and maintain a fundamental right of self-defense hang their hat on this section of the same Constitutional clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – taking the position that a “well organized militia” can only be formed and mobilized, of and by a well armed society.
Thomas Jefferson agreed when he said, "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." Co-author of the Second Amendment George Mason, also agreed. (Quoted below)
Though both statements clearly appear in the Second Amendment, the interpretation is usually guided by the agenda of the interpreter. That’s why the ultimate decision of the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to be another 5-4 decision, no matter which side they come down on, and no matter what the Framers had to say.
An Old Debate
Contrary to popular belief, this debate over what rights are provided by the Second Amendment is not new. The Framers themselves were engaged in the same debate all the way back at the Constitutional Convention. Some were concerned about a people’s power to resist its government by force if necessary. Most understood that individual freedom and liberty could be preserved no other way.
The debate was settled by the words ratified in the Second Amendment and anyone seeking an honest interpretation of those words; need look no further than the many statements of the Framers on the subject, regarding both their intent and their reasoning.
The Framers Intent is Clear
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...” – “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms…” - Thomas Jefferson
"
The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun." -
Patrick Henry
“
The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” - Zacharia Johnson
"
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." - George Mason (Co-author of the Second Amendment)
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" - Samuel Adams
The Framers Reasoning is Also Clear
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence …” - George Washington
"
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee
"
Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." – "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … " - Thomas Jefferson
In his speech before the Virginia Ratifying Convention, George Mason who co-authored the Second Amendment, explained the purpose and reasoning behind it to those who would vote to ratify the U.S. Constitution, - “When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, - who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”
There really is No Valid Debate, Only Two Opposing Agendas
As long as man has existed on earth, men have sought power over other men. Our nation’s Founders were not only wise enough to protect the right of every law abiding citizen to keep and bear arms, but to form a representative republic instead of a pure democracy as well, whereas a majority mob could otherwise strip the minority of their individual rights in the name of an alleged greater common good.
Throughout history, freedom has belonged only to those willing to defend it by force, against enemies of freedom, both foreign and domestic.
Any American who seeks to strip law abiding citizens of their right to keep and bear arms is indeed an enemy of freedom and individual liberty, be they private citizen, elected official, or un-elected arbiter of the law.
The Progressive Ideology
The logic of the progressive left suggests that these founding ideas have since lost their usefulness in an advanced civilization which now appears willing to relinquish individual freedom and liberty in exchange for an alleged greater common good.
The base argument is that no matter what the Framers intended or what their reasoning was, we are a more evolved and progressive society now, which no longer requires such barbaric antiquated ideas as self-defense and private gun ownership.
Yet this is exactly what the Founders warned us against at every opportunity and history is filled all over the globe with example after example of what happens to any society once its people are stripped of their ability to care for their own well-being.
District of Columbia v. Heller
Though many will claim that this case relates only to the two parties named in the case, need I remind you of what became of a case known as Roe v. Wade?
For years now, the courts have been used as a means of passing laws via judicial fiat that would otherwise never pass the people’s test in the elected legislative body. You have heard liberal politician after liberal politician refer to Roe v. Wade and the assumed national right to abortion that resulted, as the “settled law of the land.”
Yet no such law was ever passed by the only branch of government assigned the power of making law. And since like the unalienable right to life, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” by congress either, the courts will once again be used to do the dirty work.
If the U.S. Supreme Court happens to overturn the ruling of the appeals court which ruled in favor of Heller, and upholds the District of Columbia’s right to take arms from its law abiding citizens, this decision will be used as “settled law” to take guns away from private citizens across this land.
Before the people hear the decision of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court should hear more than the oral arguments of the two involved in the DC case.
For this purpose, I am including a link to the contact page for the U.S. Supreme Court. You will note that in our age of great technology, the U.S. Supreme Court offers no email address, no fax number and no phone number by which the nine un-elected individuals who decide our future on a daily basis, immune from consequence, can hear your views.
So I am including the only means by which you can contact our nine person oligarchy the old fashioned way. They will likely never read them, but a volume of mail in the box might make the point.
Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC. 20543
RE: District of Columbia v. Heller
I suggest that you take a moment to let the nine judges who will soon decide what our Second Amendment means, know what you believe it to mean. It’s clear what the Framers meant. It’s also clear what liberals in the District of Columbia and across this land mean.
For my Liberal Friends
Allow me to remind you that nine un-elected individuals were NOT given the power to rule over this nation by way of judicial activism. Thomas Jefferson wrote with great anxiety about the powers never given, but instead assumed by the judicial branch.
"The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." - Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
Despite the recent liberal practice of judicial activism in our courts, the Constitution affords the judicial branch no such powers and Jefferson, among others, pointed out why. The rule of an un-elected few over many is an “oligarchy,” not a representative republic.
Let the Supreme Court know what you mean and do it soon. We stopped Amnesty for Illegals, so we can stop the anti-American confiscation of arms as well. But we must act and act quickly!
Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC. 20543
RE: District of Columbia v. Heller
