More gun control

Those wonderful people who brought us rabid environmentalism, political correctness, the Stimulus program, and amnesty for illegal aliens are at it again. Once more we’re faced with the specter of “Gun Control” decreed by Washington. One of the leading mouthpieces for this is “Handgun Control Inc.”, who claims that it “only wants to keep handguns out of the hands of the wrong people”. Fine sounding words I suppose, if you’re a bleeding heart leftist. Really, these nuts all know that banning guns works to stop crime, and haven’t they told us that, time and again? I suppose we’re expected to ignore the fact that New York and Chicago have such high murder rates. Ignore the fact that Washington D.C. has strict gun controls and a murder rate of 69 victims per 100,000 population. Ignore the fact that Indianapolis, without severe gun laws, has a murder rate of only 9 per 100,000. Australia had a high profile mass shooting a number of years back that brought about a nationwide gun grab, yet their crime rate hasn’t declined... in fact it’s skyrocketed! Just last week in England, where all gun ownership is tightly restricted, a taxi driver described as "friends with everybody" went on a shooting spree killing 12 people and wounding 25 others. In America, rural areas with few gun restrictions have a surprisingly low crime rate, but urban areas with strict gun laws suffer the highest murder rates in much of the world! So the left claims that gun control works! But no, the feds are supposed to keep guns out of the wrong hands, so, leading with their usual left wing logic, if you are a law abiding citizen who happens to own a handgun, you obviously have the wrong hands.

Such logic further dictates that you can incapacitate an intruder with oven spray, but if you shoot him with a .357 magnum he will get angry and kill you. (Wanna bet!?) And of course a woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a live woman with a smoking gun in hand, and a dead rapist at her feet. The “evidence” often quoted by the left is from their usual line of impeccable sources, as we all know that the "New England Journal of Medicine" carries excellent articles on gun control, just as "The American Rifleman" carries such great articles about open-heart surgery. With all this, I guess we should consult Wall Street CEO’s about the nations economy, the loony left about our nations political problems, and Sara Brady for advise about firearms. We’re told that the Second Amendment to our Constitution, which was ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which you might note, was created by Act of Congress in 1903, a mere 112 years later. Then of course logic tells them that “The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "the right of the people to be secure in their homes" refers to individuals, while "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers only to the state. Still, as most citizens cannot be trusted, we need strict firearms laws because we can trust our citizens to abide by them. The leftists don't get it -- criminals don't obey the law, only law-abiding citizens do. So how does denying the Second Amendment Rights of law-abiding citizens ensure that criminals won't have guns? Pardon me while I scratch my head and try to figure out all this.

Back in 2006, the UN adopted resolution 61/89, intended to develop an international treaty that would severely limit international trafficking in “conventional arms”. I’m sure that when this was first thought up, it actually was targeted at the international military arms trade. The Bush administration turned it down on the grounds that national controls would be more effective at limiting a very lucrative business, than would a rather broad based and difficult to enforce UN treaty. Now however, team Obama has reversed President Bush’s decision (why am I not surprised at that). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Oct. 14 last, that the U.S. would now support the treaty, as without U.S. support, the "negotiations would not have been conducted at a high political level". Now, representing the US, she’s signed on, and the “treaty” is due in 2012. If you are not familiar with most of this, you haven’t been following the firearms debate. Perhaps you haven’t been tuned in to the liberals who are trying to get their grubby hands on your shoot’in iron!

Essentially the treaty would include all weapons – all military, security and police arms, related equipment, ammunition, components, expertise, and production equipment. All types of transfer – including import, export, re-export, temporary transfer, transhipment, state sanctioned and commercial trade, plus transfers of technology, loans, gifts, aid, and all transactions including those by dealers and brokers, and those providing technical assistance, training, transport, storage, finance and security. This does not mean that weapons sales are outlawed, merely that any sale or transfer is required to have some sort of government permit that would be issued at the whim of… yet another federal bureaucrat! That would include your leaving Grandpappy’s old musket to the Grandkids! The plan is to develop a treaty that ensures no transfer is permitted if there is any risk that it is likely to be used in violation of human rights, act of genocide, or crime against humanity. Or, if it might facilitate terrorist attacks, gender based violence, violent crime or organized crime. The “violent crime” component instantly includes ANY sort of firearm, and I’d suspect knives, clubs, or a bow and arrow as well!

If the UN wants to limit international trade in tanks, artillery pieces, and machineguns, that’s understandable, and it might even be a good idea given the number of wars and assorted genocidal pogroms going on around the planet. But they can darn well keep their fingers off of my Constitutional rights! The 2nd Amendment of our Bill of Rights says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. At the time the 2nd was ratified, that meant rifles, muskets, etc., as those were the weapons used by militias as well as for hunting and personal protection. As firearms technology expanded, the 2nd amendment expanded as well, to include weapons that are much more advanced (automatic weapons, high-powered rifles, "assault" rifles) than those used in the late 1700s. But there's also some limit on what arms the people are allowed to keep and bear. It's my opinion that at the time the 2ed amendment was written one of its functions was to insure that the citizenry had the ability to stop the government if it turned to tyranny. If that is the case, then the common folk would need weapons that could match the governments. The key here is that you have the right to keep and bear any arms, as long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights. My possession of any particular weapon doesn’t intrude on anyone’s rights, even though using it might be an infringment. (Launching an ICBM from my back yard might possibly cause major problems for the neighbors!)

As for me, I’ll keep my Constitutional Rights and my rifle. I will so inform my congressman of that fact… and he can have the change.