This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Reasonable Gun Control? by Angel Shamaya October 24, 2001 KeepAndBearArms.com -- We often hear the
anti-self-defense crowd espouse desires for reasonable gun controls. "All we want is reasonable control over these lethal
weapons," say the gun controllers, while those who oppose their viewpoints
are labeled as "extremists." So what exactly constitutes
"reasonable" gun control? "REASONABLE" AMMUNITION BAN In June of 1974, Handgun Control, Inc. -- now
calling itself the Brady Campaign to
Prevent Gun Violence, hereafter referred to as "the Brady camp" --
proposed a complete ban on handgun ammunition. Their petition to the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission called for: "...a rule banning the sale of bullets
for hand guns, with exceptions for police, licensed security guards, the
military, and licensed pistol clubs." (See:
http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml75/75016.html.) Last year, as every year since the above
proposed ammunition ban, millions of Americans enjoyed the safety and
security provided by access to a loaded handgun for self-defensive purposes. If Brady's
"reasonable" ammunition ban had been successful, how would the
following news stories involving senior citizens have turned out? If the Brady camp had been successful at
affecting an ammunition ban, what would have become of these lawful, decent
elderly citizens when they needed the ammo to defend their own lives? Why does the Brady camp wish to prohibit
self-defense among our senior citizens? "REASONABLE" SELF-DEFENSE BAN The Brady camp has said publicly that they can
accept the possession of guns for legitimate purposes. Their opinions about what
makes owning a gun legitimate have included sporting purposes, hunting and
recreation -- never self-defense. "The only reason for guns in
civilian hands is for sporting purposes," said Sarah Brady. (Tampa
Tribune, Oct. 21, 1993) What would have become of the following women
if they hadn't had a gun this year to defend themselves: It's hard to understand why the Brady camp
would oppose the use of firearms in the above self-defense situations. Without a
firearm, these women, in at least some of the instances, would have been
severely hurt or killed. Why does Brady support wish to prohibit these
women from defending their own lives, dignity and property? What's more, Brady has even published
information about how many crimes are thwarted by firearms each year: Q: What are the real numbers on the use
of firearms for self-defense? A: According to the US Department of
Justice: On average per year in 1987-92, about
62,200 victims of violent crime, about 1% of all victims of violence, used a
firearm to defend themselves. Another 20,300 used a firearm to defend their
property during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft. Though their numbers are way off -- most armed
self-defense stories are unreported, and many crimes are
thwarted by the deterrent of an armed society -- let's use
them to make a point: that's 82,500 people who used a firearm in self-defense,
per year, on average. But self-defense is not a good enough reason to own a
gun, according to their leader, Sarah Brady. To an outside observer, that seems rather rude.
To the families of those 82,500 people who averted crimes against their persons
and/or property, it might even seem criminal -- and like Brady is the accomplice. "REASONABLE" CONCEALED CARRY BAN The Brady camp has consistently spoken out
against concealed carry decriminalization. Any time there is a new bill
introduced to decriminalize the carrying of concealed weapons for self-defensive
purposes, Brady opposes the bill. They oppose allowing a 90-pound single
mother to carry a self-defense firearm when she has to walk to work
through a rough part of town. Brady also hoped that by putting Al Gore in the
U.S. Presidency in the 2000 election they'd be able to re-criminalize concealed
carry in states where citizens are now carrying concealed firearms legally. Taking a look at just one month -- July 2001 --
we found four cases where citizens legally carrying concealed firearms
thwarted violent crimes. Does Brady honestly want people to believe that these
innocent people deserved to be victimized and should simply have submitted to the whims
of predators -- even if it meant serious bodily injury or death? And while the Brady camp has yet to show that
people who legally carry concealed are more likely to commit crimes with their
firearms than the general population, at least one researcher has shown just the opposite: concealed carry
permittees are less likely to commit a crime, by far, than the general
population. One must wonder why the Brady camp supports
violence against lawful, decent citizens. That doesn't seem very balanced or enlightened. "REASONABLE" CRIMINAL SAFETY ZONES The calls for "reasonable" gun
control do not always come from the usual suspects -- occasionally, and more
frequently lately, people who bill themselves as strident gun rights leaders
urge people to support bad ideas. For example: "We think it 's reasonable to support
the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act." --Testimony
of Wayne R. LaPierre, Executive Vice-President, National Rifle
Association, before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime, U.
S. House of Representatives, May 27, 1999 Before you agree with Mr. LaPierre's statement,
consider these facts: Why is it "reasonable" to tell every
criminal-minded idiot in the entire nation that our schoolchildren are sitting
ducks? Where is the common sense in banning teachers
from defending their students and themselves? Whose insane idea was this, and why are gun
rights leaders promoting it in the halls of Congress? "REASONABLE" LIES TO PROMOTE
DISARMAMENT The Brady camp has been telling whoppers about
U.S. v Miller since they were founded. You can even read lies about the 1939
Supreme Court case on the Brady website today. Click
here and you'll find the following statement, copied from their website
today: As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second
Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v.
Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the
"obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the
continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia. Not only is the above is patently untrue, the
court found just the opposite in that case, as follows: "The signification attributed to the
term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and
legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators.
These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ... that ordinarily when called
for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by
themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." (See: U.S.
v Miller, 1939.) The phrase "state militia" doesn't
occur anywhere within the text of U.S. v Miller; Brady added it in an
attempt to deceive people who won't take the time to read the actual text of the
court decision. Miller, contrary to the Brady camp's bizarre revisionist
misinterpretation, supports the individual right to keep and bear arms.
The above lie from them is but one in a long, tiring list
of "reasonable" Brady lies. CONCLUSION The Brady camp and various other gun
prohibitionists misuse the term "reasonable" when discussing gun
control. They find it reasonable to: There is nothing reasonable about supporting
these things. Anyone who does should be ashamed. |
||||||||