170 lines
10 KiB
Plaintext
170 lines
10 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
REASONABLE POSITIONS GUN OWNERS TAKE AS THEY GIVE UP OUR RIGHTS
|
||
|
||
by
|
||
Stuart Hutchings and Larry Kahhan
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
"We have met the enemy and he is us!"....Pogo.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Many gun owners must feel intellectually inferior to the anti-gun
|
||
crowd. Intimidated by Ivy-league jargon and connections to the
|
||
Eastern Establishment, or star-struck and flattered by association
|
||
with celebrity politicians or their hand picked law enforcement
|
||
"experts," the average gun owner, hunter, or gun store owner will
|
||
directly violate his gut instinct not to compromise on a fundamental
|
||
rights issue and accept, in fact offer, a "reasonable compromise" of
|
||
his rights. This fear of being accused of being "crazy," or
|
||
"lunatic," or "unreasonable," or "uncompromising" by a Liberal media
|
||
who can make the label stick is apparently so frightening to some gun
|
||
owners that the will not only come to a bargaining table--where we
|
||
should not be to begin with--but they will buy their seat at the
|
||
table with an immediate concession. It is at this instant that
|
||
the erosion of rights begins. No longer do we wonder if our rights
|
||
will be violated; it is simply a matter of how badly will we be hurt
|
||
this time.
|
||
|
||
What are some of these seemingly benign, harmless concessions offered
|
||
up so that gun owners will not be labeled, ostracized, and shunned as
|
||
radicals? We will give some examples and demonstrate how each results
|
||
in the gun owner shooting himself in the foot.
|
||
|
||
First, there is always someone who will say that an honest, law
|
||
abiding citizen shouldn't mind waiting for a gun or submitting to a
|
||
background check. This shows both a tremendous naivete about how
|
||
power can be abused and a failure to have mastered an understanding
|
||
of the Constitution and how it came about. Our Bill of Rights was
|
||
created to protect the innocent, law abiding citizen from
|
||
governmental abuse. Just because we only hear about it when it seems
|
||
to protect criminals, that doesn't mean that it is not functioning in
|
||
the manner it was intended. To give up any or all of this protection
|
||
and claim "innocence" as a defense against potential tyranny is not
|
||
only stupid but a betrayal of the work and sacrifice of those who
|
||
gave us that protection and the good faith of the innocent yet to
|
||
come. We simply do not have the right to bargain it away; to do so
|
||
for social reasons would simply be a failure of moral fitness.
|
||
Tyranny occurs when criminals take control of governments and
|
||
bureaucracies; when have you ever heard of a criminal respecting
|
||
innocence? To institute the bureaucracy and machinery to have a
|
||
waiting period and or a background check is to hand over to the
|
||
government all they need to instantly deny all and any attempts to
|
||
exercise the God given right to keep and bear arms; exactly what the
|
||
Constitution forbids the government from doing. No matter if the
|
||
waiting period is 30 days or 30 seconds, the machinery is in place.
|
||
No matter if the background check is through the FBI or simply
|
||
looking you up in the phone book, you are being asked to prove your
|
||
innocence. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "A right delayed is a
|
||
right denied." We agree. If you truly have a right, no one has the
|
||
authority to deny you or to delay you. Regarding the so-called
|
||
instant background checks and instant waiting periods, just because
|
||
its fast doesn't make it constitutional.
|
||
|
||
From a practical standpoint, waiting periods can cost as many lives
|
||
as they might save. For every crime there is both a victim and a
|
||
perpetrator. If a person is threatened, he should not have to wait
|
||
to acquire a means of defense. If he or she is a gun owner and his
|
||
or her guns are stolen, he or she should be able to immediately
|
||
replace them so the criminal who stole the guns in the first place
|
||
will not be able to assume that he can come back later to find an
|
||
unarmed victim. If a firearm is used in self-defense and is taken
|
||
by the police as evidence pending resolution, it should be possible
|
||
to instantly replace the weapon so that the individual who was saved
|
||
by his gun in the first place does not fall victim to friends and
|
||
associates of the original perpetrator who know that he has been
|
||
disarmed. If not having a waiting period can save just one life,
|
||
let's not have waiting periods. Why should we concede the
|
||
background/waiting period issue just to avoid being branded
|
||
"radical?" If they mean to take our rights away, let the fight begin
|
||
here!
|
||
|
||
Another weak point in the epistemology of the gun owner is the
|
||
concept of mandatory sentencing of people convicted of using a gun in
|
||
a crime. Again, in an attempt to appear reasonable, a gun owner will
|
||
say, "Don't take the guns away from honest, law abiding citizens but
|
||
if someone uses a gun in a crime, make it an automatic mandatory
|
||
additional 5 or 10 years." This is a dumb position. First, it
|
||
prejudices the judicial system against guns and, thus, gun owners. A
|
||
crime is a crime. Should someone really get an extra 5 years for
|
||
shooting someone to death while someone who tortures someone else to
|
||
death with, say, a chain saw, gets out five years sooner? How about
|
||
an extra sentence for using a semi-automatic pistol rather than a
|
||
double-action revolver? If you think that is stupid, you should know
|
||
that it is supported and backed by President Bush. In fact, he
|
||
favors it so strongly that he promises that if Congress will pass his
|
||
"Crime Control" Bill of which this is a part, he will sign the Brady
|
||
Bill and the "assault weapon" ban for them. Likewise, if you use a
|
||
gun in self defense and a less than enlightened jury finds you guilty
|
||
of something and the judge decides that it is a stupid verdict and
|
||
wants to suspend the sentence(s), do you want him not to have the
|
||
option of suspending the mandatory firearms provisions? To prejudice
|
||
the system this way is to de facto criminalize gun ownership and
|
||
legitimate uses. Will you grant the anti-gun faction this issue just
|
||
so they can't say that you are "unreasonable?"
|
||
|
||
Some gun owners will take the position, in an attempt to appear
|
||
reasonable, that no one needs a high capacity magazine, or no one
|
||
needs an "assault" rifle. When HCI attacks any gun, they are
|
||
attacking all guns. If you grant them their position on any one
|
||
class of guns, they will take what you give and attack another class.
|
||
After all, it was Handgun Control Inc. who launched the attack on
|
||
"assault" rifles. Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that the
|
||
Constitution recognizes and protects your right to have military
|
||
weapons, the point here is that the anti-gunners will first take what
|
||
they can get then try to get more.
|
||
|
||
"I don't believe in waiting periods, but a plan like they have in
|
||
Virginia, well, I wouldn't mind that." Sadder words were never
|
||
spoken. What right thinking citizens would ever have invented the so-
|
||
called Virginia Instant Background Check if they weren't grasping for
|
||
a compromise after feeling the social heat from HCI and Sarah Brady.
|
||
To quote Senator Joe Biden, from The Congressional Record, January
|
||
10, 1991, page S121, "As the Supreme Court Has written, 'The fact
|
||
that a given procedure is efficient, convenient, and useful in
|
||
facilitating the functions of the Government will not save it if it
|
||
is contrary to the Constitution. Convenience and efficiency are not
|
||
the primary objectives--or the hallmark--of a democratic
|
||
government.'" Just because it's fast doesn't mean its
|
||
constitutional. The Virginia Plan, its many technical problems
|
||
aside, constitutes prior restraint and an infringement of our Second
|
||
Amendment Rights. Yet, many so-called pro-gun people cling to it not
|
||
because it's a good idea, but to save them from a worse plan like the
|
||
Brady Bill. Would they throw their support behind the Brady Bill if
|
||
the people who are pushing the Brady Bill were instead asking us at
|
||
the point of their guns to turn in ours? Probably. This shows that
|
||
the anti-gunners have the initiative and we are losing. We will
|
||
continue to lose until we have either lost it all or started
|
||
believing in ourselves and our cause. NO Compromise, EVER. No
|
||
Deals. No "reasonable meeting of minds between reasonable people."
|
||
When they ask for a seven day waiting period, we should respond by
|
||
introducing legislation for NATIONAL PREEMPTION. When they ask for a
|
||
ban on a particular class of weapons, we ask for FEDERAL CARRY
|
||
PERMITS, issued without having to show cause, as an "important first
|
||
step" towards restoring our already badly infringed 2nd Amendment
|
||
rights.
|
||
|
||
Perhaps, in the kinder, gentler New World Order, it has been decided
|
||
that there is no place for a unique nation with the unique quality of
|
||
universal gun ownership. Maybe our entire bill of rights is an
|
||
embarrassment to other nations and their trans-national
|
||
superstructures. Perhaps in order to be brought in line with the New
|
||
Order we must be somehow equalized so that envious peoples throughout
|
||
the world striving for freedom won't be able to point to us and say,
|
||
"Americans are armed, why can't we be?" The fury and desperation with
|
||
which our Second Amendment Right is being attacked indicates a higher
|
||
agenda than simple "public good." It is no longer enough to be "for
|
||
guns." The enemy is too subtle and seductive in its arguments for
|
||
that. We must each be intellectually able to engage and destroy
|
||
every single spin they can put on the issue. But more importantly,
|
||
like the original framers of the Constitution, we must have the faith
|
||
in our cause and ourselves to risk being labeled by the media,
|
||
shunned, or socially ostracized while overwhelming forces seem
|
||
mustered against us.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Stuart Hutchings is the 9th District Director of the Georgia Sport
|
||
Shooting Association. Larry Kahhan is the Research Director of
|
||
Citizens for Safe Government, Inc., an Atlanta based Civil Rights
|
||
organization.
|
||
|