go to Main Page of the Second Amendment SIGThe Armed-M
From EDMONK@aol.com
Back to Basics - 12 Nov 97 - Choose where you fight. This is well known in the military. The ground where you fight can be to your advantage, the enemy's, or neutral. For too long we've been letting our enemy choose where we fight; they have defined the debate. We need to change that. The ground that is to our advantage is the constitution. We should lead all debate back to the fact that firearm ownership is a constitutionally guaranteed right, a civil right, one of several our founding fathers tried to protect.
Most Americans understand the importance of our 1st Amendment. Most are strong supporters of free worship, even if they do not personally attend services. Most agree that we must protect free assembly and speech, even for those we disagree with. But many that do not own guns, or "THAT" type of gun, will encourage, or stand idly by while governments at all levels rape citizens of their rights. The 2nd Amendment is written on that same paper as the other nine, but many see no connection. That is what we must correct. We must link all rights together in people's minds. Revert all questions back to "rights."
It's not about guns; it's about rights.I heard Alan Gottlieb (SAF) on a radio show argue against rationing by saying that a collector might find a pair of pistols with matching serial numbers , and one-gun-a-month would prevent him from buying the set. How lame. What he should have said was that the government does not have the authority to limit each citizen to one worship a month; one newspaper a month; one Lions Club meeting a month; or one gun a month. In fact, they are expressly forbidden from this.
Wayne LaPierre recently "attacked" the Brady law on a Sunday morning TV program by saying only 3 persons had been incarcerated for violating it. What? How about we do not wait to worship, assemble on private property, or buy a book. There is not a five day grace period where the police can do random searches, beat confessions out of suspects, or hold us without charges, at least not yet.
While arguing against the assault weapons ban, many quibbled about what an "assault" weapon was, claimed they were only used in small percentage of crime, and claimed they did have a "sporting purpose." These are self inflicted wounds. John Q. Public doesn't understand or care about them. But he would react negatively to suggestions of banning a few religions, books , newspaper, or political parties that serve "no legitimate purpose" according to our government.
If the government has the authority to ban guns, then it also may ban religions and books. If a waiting period for guns is constitutional, then so is one for private assembly. If rationing the purchase of guns is not prohibited, then neither is rationing newspapers. If government power has no absolute limits, then we have no rights. This is simple truth, therefore counter arguments tend to be void of truth. You've heard them all, but let's review:
The 2nd Amendment does guarantee an individual right according to all founding fathers that spoke to it, and every Supreme Court ruling on it. "Collective right" was not in the vocabulary of our founding fathers nor in the constitution.
Yes, all rights are restricted, but only when exercising the right violates the rights of others, such as yelling fire in a theater, blocking access to buildings, or shooting abortion doctors. No other right is restricted simply because there exist a potential to abuse it. If so we could ban assembly for all to prevent illegal gang activity.
Yes, there can be restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights, the same as on other rights - age, mental health, criminal record, and prohibition from violating the rights of others (murder, assault, reckless endangerment); also for national security. That would restrict ownership of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, as well as high-tech weapons such as surface to air missiles. But the M-16 is not a classified technology. We've been selling and giving them to 3rd world countries for years.
No, it's not the only right that costs lives. Conspiracy to commit murder can only occur with assembly and speech. Murderers walk free to kill again because of illegal search, no Miranda rights, and forced confession. Does Heaven's Gate ring a bell?
Yes, we license cars. But operating cars on public roads is not a right. Comparing that to owning a gun or a book is comparing apples to oranges; it violates the fruit salad rule. Comparing guns to cars is like comparing bibles to lotto tickets.
You may think it's a good idea, but that doesn't make it constitutional. Those are two different, unconnected conditions. Our Bill of Rights does not say ".shall not be infringed unless it's a good idea." As William Pitt said in 1787, "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." Could people in a certain town prohibit people of a certain skin color from voting, if they feel it's a good idea? NO, thank goodness. Voting is a right.
Yes, times have changed, but the 2nd Amendment has not. We have a way to change the constitution if we feel evolution requires it - amendments. That's how we grew out of slavery, male-only suffrage, and other rules we wanted to change. We did not simply ignore the constitution.
No, the framers could not have foreseen modern guns. Neither could they have foreseen our modern press and methods of speech, yet TV, phones, and radios are protected by the 1st Amendment. So are political parties and religions not in existence when our constitution was written.
We are not radical or extreme. It would be radical to say the right of the people to peaceably assemble was merely the "right" of a state to have a legislature, or state assembly, and guarantees nothing to citizens. That' s extreme. That's criminal. Our views are common sense. But we either have been too afraid to say it in public, or tried to be too damn creative. Our rights are being confiscated. In case of emergency, break glass, take out the constitution, and use it.
Ed Monk
23 Nov 97
From EDMONK@aol.com
In my first article for the Liberty Pole, I told you about my home town. Time for an update. After visiting me in Virginia, my 73 year old widowed mother flew back to Arkansas. My brother, Dan, who now lives in Mississippi, drove her to and from the airport for the trip. On their return, they discovered mom's house had been burglarized. The criminals had splintered the back door. They took all the guns, keys and other valuables.
So, after the inventory and police report, my brother had to comfort and protect my mother. She was faced with sleeping in a house surrounded on two sides by woods, missing one door, and knowing criminals had keys to her house and car. My brother had not brought a gun with him. He only expected to pick mom up, drop her off, and go back to his home.
So Dan walked up the hill to our neighbors' house. He asked Mr. Hayley if he could borrow a gun for protection until he could get the door replaced and the house re-keyed. Mr. Hayley laid several handguns on the kitchen table and said "Which one you want, Danny?" I love my home town. Dan took the 38 special.
If there had been a law in place such as I-676 proposed in Washington (requiring government training/testing and licensing to "control" a handgun), Dan would have been protecting my mother from armed thieves with a Louisville Slugger. Living out of state, he could not have had a permit to "control" a handgun. So Mr. Hayley could not (legally) have loaned him the weapon. I find that repulsive, un-American, and unacceptable.
This is just one real life example of why gun control is not only unconstitutional, but just plain wrong. We all cheer that I-676 failed 2- 1. But it made it on the ballot. 29% voted for it. Next time it will be more. I-676 was not a victory for us, but a temporary pause in their attack. It will be proposed in other states. Some states have such laws. All those in favor of losing your rights. just sit there.
Ed Monk
From EDMONK@aol.com
1 March 98
There is no individual right to own guns. The 2nd Amendment guarantees nothing to individual citizens. It merely recognizes a "collective" right of the state to have a militia, which is the National Guard."
We've all heard this argument made by gun control lobbyist, politicians, judges, and others among the uninformed. Forget a moment the views of the Founding Fathers, and let's explore that logic. The clear purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee individual liberty and state sovereignty, against the federal government if necessary. So, if the 2nd Amendment guarantees nothing more than our National Guard, then the National Guard must, alone, have the capability to fight off the federal military, thereby guaranteeing the security of a free state. Make sense? Let's follow that fantasy.
The US Army has about 30 maneuver brigades, compared to one or two brigades in a state National Guard. 30 against 2, seems like an unfair fight, but guardsman are scrappy folk so let's call it even=85. so far. Let's dig deeper.
The federal government owns and issues the tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, helicopters, and cannons that the National Guard train with. The federal government also issues the very specialized and tightly controlled ammunition fired from those weapon systems. Does it make sense for your potential enemy to be the sole supplier of your weapons and ammunition?
Since 1983, the President can deploy any state's National Guard out of their state, or out of the country, at any time without the consent of the Governor (s) (Montgomery Amendment, upheld in Perpich v. Dept of Defense 19 90). This is done routinely. If the National Guard is out of the state, what guarantees the security of the free state? Who guards liberty and freedom ?
The President can federalize the National Guard at any time, as happened in 1957. The federal government wanted to impose its demands on the state of Arkansas, the President federalized the state's Guard, putting them under his control. The President then ordered the Guard to remain in their armories, while he sent an active Airborne Division into the state to impose federal policy.
The federal government also controls the force structure of the National Guard. While a state may today have an infantry brigade to oppose a tyrant's 10 divisions, Congress may change that brigade to a water purification unit, and take away the weapons it had issued the former combat brigade.
To sum up, the above "collective right" theory says a part time military force, outnumbered more than 10-1, can fight off it's oppressor while being totally controlled and supplied by them, provided they are not deployed elsewhere.
Our Founding fathers knew and said who made up the militia: the people. The federal government can easily render the National Guard unable to protect "the security of a free state" by federalizing it, deploying it, or refusing to supply it. A well armed citizenry can deter tyranny and protect their liberty. That was the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
Ed Monk
Letter to the people of Chicago
Below is a letter to the editor I've "E" mailed to several major Chicago area newspapers concerning this issue if you're interested. They probably will elect not to print it though. --- Mike Frye
People of Chicago
How could those of you in Chicago have elected officials who seemingly feel nothing but contempt for our constitution? Officials who seem to view our civil rights as obstacles to be sidestepped by frivolous lawsuits designed not to win, but simply to bankrupt those who oppose them. In these days when nearly every politician seems to be at best a power hungry hack, the preservation of our civil rights has never been more important. When the founders wrote our Bill of Rights it must have been times like these they were thinking of. We live in an age when the "powers that be" in our government have so much money on their hands (our money) that they can hire an endless string of spin-doctors to color and distort every morsel of information we receive. We live in an age when misinformation and lying, both to the public and even under oath is accepted or at least expected practice. The fact that you’re current city administration is attempting to bypass the clear intent of the Second Amendment of our Constitution by using taxpayer funds in an attempt to bankrupting private businesses is a clear example of an out of control administration. Remember, the Second Amendment is not about hunting. The Second Amendment is about the right to self-defense and the right to refuse to be a victim.
Research by Professor John R. Lott Jr. of the University of Chicago, an unbiased researcher with no ties to the NRA clearly shows the true relationship of gun ownership to crime. According to his research, allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly. That’s a 21% lower murder rate and a 32% lower robbery rate for states that allow citizens the means to defend themselves!
Figure it out, how many citizens of your city would still be alive, how many of your wives, daughters & sisters would not have been raped if you were allowed the same rights we in Indiana and thirty-six other states are? Your crime problems were not created by those of us outside Chicago, many of whom are afraid to even drive through your city. Your crime problems have been created by your own gun laws that disallow self-defense. What could possibly make a criminal feel more secure than knowing that as long as he preys on law-abiding citizens he will be the only one armed? Why do you think that on January first of this year CNN online declared Chicago the "Nations 1998 Murder Capital"? The right to be safe should be fundamental for all people, not just for wealthy people who can afford bodyguards and suburban homes. Your city and state administrations, by not allowing concealed carry of firearms for self-defense has created a utopia for criminals in your city. The truth is, no single change could help your city’s crime rate more than allowing law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves from the predators your city’s gun ban has created. A Department of Justice survey found that 40% of felons had chosen not to commit at least one crime for fear their victims were armed, and 34% admitted being scared off or shot at by armed victims. These criminals have no such fear in Chicago. Also, Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a firearm lessens the chance that a rape, robbery or assault attempt will be successfully completed and reduces the chance of injury to the intended victim. As you can see, your gun ban can never protect you from criminals, it can only protect criminals from you.
And now with an awesome show of stupidity, your city fathers have decided that the solution to the crime problem they have created is to pull the constitutional rug out from under the rest of the country by way of their frivolous lawsuits against domestic firearms manufactures.
I feel that because of your city’s irresponsible attack upon the civil rights of all Americans I have no choice but to call and write my representatives and request that all federal funds be withheld from your city until this matter is dropped or until you lose your lawsuit. I want to make sure that none of my tax money is used to attack the very fabric our country is built upon. If you need help funding your roads, schools or anything else then spend your anti-constitution war chest on it, not my tax money.
Mike Frye
[end of newsletter]
go to TOP of page
The Armed-M is a publication of the 2nd Amendment SIG, a special interest group of American Mensa Ltd. Opinions expressed herein are the opinions of the writers, and not of American Mensa, Ltd. which has no opinions.
Editor's disclaimer: The ARMED-M is written for intelligent thinking people. Much of what it contains is "Raw Intelligence" material from a single source that has not or can not be checked for validity. Do not turn off your brain or powers of discrimination when reading this publication, and as a ARMED-M never run off half cocked.
go to Main Page of the Second Amendment SIG