The Real Problem with Gun Control
Posted on June 21, 2017 by Robert Ringer
Predictably, the recent attack on Republican lawmakers by a deranged gunman prompted members of the Radical Left to drag out their same old, tired arguments for gun-control. Never mind that the nation’s capital, one of the most violence-prone cities in America, has some of the nation’s strictest gun-control laws. Facts are irrelevant to them.
The authors of the Second Amendment had important reasons for adding the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Having been tyrannized by Great Britain, they saw the right to bear arms not only as a way for American citizens to protect themselves and their property from other individuals, but as a last-resort defense against an oppressive government.
That is precisely why it is in the best interest of today’s government to disarm the public. It has cleverly masked this violation of Constitutional and natural rights by appealing to the emotions of a populace grown weary of violence.
But notwithstanding their continual efforts to build a case against gun ownership, government legislators have failed in their attempts to show that gun control lowers crime rates. On the contrary, the results of endless studies have shown quite the opposite to be true: Not only does owning guns does not cause crime, it clearly prevents it.
The old saying that “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them” is a self-evident truth. Certainly, even the most zealous gun-control advocate understands that criminals in every city in America are walking the streets carrying concealed weapons. Which means guncontrol laws have the very real effect of giving criminals a huge advantage over non-criminals, as evidenced in the attempted massacre in Alexandria.
Like an overly protective parent, our government wags its finger at us and says: “You mustn’t own guns, because you might hurt yourself or someone else.” The assumption is that just because something can be used to harm someone, it will be used for that purpose.
There’s no question that thousands of people are killed each year by handguns, which is an unfortunate fact of life. Nevertheless, it’s only a small percentage of the number of people killed by automobiles. Yet, it would make no sense to suggest that responsible individuals should be denied the right to drive.
And the same logic should apply to guns. Just because some people use guns negligently — or for criminal purposes — is no reason to deny prudent, law-abiding citizens the right to own them.
Having said this, it may surprise you to know that I am not a big fan of the Second Amendment. It’s not that I disagree with its purpose. It’s just that I have a problem with the concept of the government granting rights to Americans through amendments to the Constitution.
After all, the very concept of amending the Constitution to grant rights implies that any rights not specifically granted by government edict or Constitutional amendment do not exist. It’s a dangerous trap, and one that we have walked into willingly while anesthetized by the phenomenon of gradualism.
So, while it’s nice that the Second Amendment grants us the right keep and bear arms, it is, more importantly, superfluous. You have the right to own a gun for the same reason you have a right to own anything. The corollary to this is that the government has no right to forbid you to own a gun for the same reason it has no right to forbid anyone from owning anything.
The term gun control, therefore, is a misnomer. When politicians talk about “gun control,” what they are really talking about is people control. As Morgan Norval put it many years ago: “‘Order’ may be the excuse; ‘law’ may be the argument; ‘keeping someone else in his place’ may be the emotional rationale; ‘supporting the police’ may be the civic slogan; ‘ending violence’ may be the dream — but the nightmare of reality is total tyranny of the state.”
Thus, not only are all arguments that favor gun control invalid on the basis of logic, fact, and morality, but even those who are against it usually miss the real point. Gun control is a freedom issue. Guns are a tool for selfdefense, and when government takes away any tool of self-defense, it not only violates our rights, it endangers our lives.
A gun is the individual’s ultimate means of preserving his freedom, which is why the right to bear arms should be defended to the bitter end. Because in the bitter end, as the American Revolutionaries discovered, it may very well get down to a matter of whether or not you have access to weapons.
One last word of advice: A gun is a means of protecting your life and property from those who would try to take them from you, so never pull out a gun unless you’ve already made the decision to use it. A gun is not a toy. It is not a means of threatening someone. Though it is socially impolite to talk about it, guns were invented for the purpose of doing harm to people (which is why governments own millions of them).
Thus, if you’re not ready to shoot someone, don’t pull out a gun. Better yet, don’t even own one, because you’re liable to end up getting yourself killed.
But for the sake of your own freedom — whether or not you choose to own a gun — you should oppose any attempt to restrict the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms. The right to own a gun, as with the right to own anything, is inherited at birth. It is not up to a group of politicians to grant such a right through a Constitutional amendment.
If you’re tired of politicians telling you what you can and cannot do, stand up and be counted. Remember, every person you educate is one more person on the side of freedom — and in a democracy, numbers count. We are only one bad election away from being unable to defend ourselves against the Radical Left authoritarians.
Well written RJR!
I've owned guns since 1972, never had to use them in self defense, just showing the weapon was enough on a few occasions to get me and my family out of trouble. Ditto my father, and my father's father and I assume h is father. Criminals don't like armed victims. (DUH!)
Good article, but I disagree with the characterization of the Second Amendment as creating or granting the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment was written to protect the natural, God-given right of self-defense.
I think what RJR was saying is that since it is natural and God-given, as you state, it does NOT need govt. – in other words, criminal politicians, to write it/grant it, etc. It is merely a clarification of "defining terms" which is the first thing that must be done in any debate.
This denies the fact that he clearly stated, "…I have a problem with the concept of the government granting rights to Americans through amendments to the Constitution. " He's missed the entire point to the BOR- these are GOD-GIVEN rights; the BOR is merely further clarification on what the goobermint CANNOT do. It's improperly called the Bill of Rights, it should more correctly be called the Bill of Limitations- limitations on the GOVERNMENT.
The fact of the matter is, NOTHING in the BOR, or in the entirety of the Constitution, is about US. It doesn't grant anything, nor does it say anywhere that it does. It DOES stipulate, in specific and limited terms, what the GOVERNMENT can or cannot do. His presumption that it grants us rights that can then be taken away merely shows that he's spent too much time looking at the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which DOES indeed do just that.
Regarding your point that the 2nd Amendment grants a right. I have always believed that ALL the amendments merely protected rights that the founders already agreed we were born with and were part of natural law. I know that is exactly the opposite of people like B.O. who thought they granted rights and therefore you could just write a few more "rights" in there if you wanted, i.e. healthcare, a house, a job, etc.
I believe the correct interruptation is to say we are born with every one of those rights as you also said and that rather than viewing the amendments as granting, look at them as protecting what we already have. Just my two cents.
I don't disagree from a technical standpoint.
"The right to own a gun, as with the right to own anything, is inherited at birth. It is not up to a group of politicians to grant such a right through a Constitutional amendment."
That statement should be carved into the wall of every government building.
Great article Robert, Thanks.
Did you ever notice the "Lefties" always want someone
else controlled, whilst they run amok.
Excellent article; as good or better than anything the NRA or GOA publishes. One small point that should be clarified: "pulling out a gun" doesn't mean you must shoot it. For example, police routinely draw their firearm when the risk level rises.
Moreover, you don't have to kill somebody with a gun. I learned that lesson a long time ago on the farm when my step father loaded up a shotgun with rock salt and handed it to me so I could blast a trespasser… There's also such a thing as a warning shot.. I know, I know, you have all these fancy pants NRA instructors teaching people a crock of shit about when, where and how to "pull out a gun". But many of them never grew up with men who knew how to win a gunfight without actually having to kill some dumb ass… It's called "winning through intimidation" , and I think somebody wrote a book with that title, once. And in the right hands, e.g., an alpha male or mean ass granny, a gun is a very effective tool of intimidation….
Like most, however, you made a common misinterpretation of the title of Mr. Ringer’s best known book. It is not “Winning BY MEANS of Intimidation”, but “Winning PAST Those Seeking to Intimidate You”.
"Most" haven't read every every single post RJR has written on this blog and the last — which is about ten years worth of reading. I'm way, way ahead of "most".
I perfectly understand the title of the book, "Winning Through Intimidation " and why it was later changed. RJR has written about that change in title many times. I actually enjoyed reading about the time RJR was all dressed up as an intimidator for a late night promo — including donning sunglasses and a cigar…
The book would have been more aptly titled, " Winning by knowing how and when to be or not to be an intimidator"…. but that title wouldn't have sold books. But "winning through Intimidation" did sell books …lots and lots of books.. The title was perfect from a marketing point of view…
“It’s just that I have a problem with the concept of the government granting rights to Americans through amendments to the Constitution.
After all, the very concept of amending the Constitution to grant rights implies that any rights not specifically granted by government edict or Constitutional amendment do not exist. It’s a dangerous trap, and one that we have walked into willingly while anesthetized by the phenomenon of gradualism. ”
I only recommend you reread the 9th and 10th Amendments, which address that very issue, in particular the 9th. The Founders HAD to add those 1st 10 Amendments at the insistence of several influential states, as a condition of ratification. That language should have been in the original document to begin with, they complained.
The 9th and 10th Amendments do address this issue, which is why the other Amendments are really necessary.
Issued several guns in the Navy. But as a Vet living in California the paperwork to purchase a gun and soon ammunition seems more challenging than to join the military. Lawmakers spend more time on gun control for law abiding citizens than they do on planning to for the next draught. Their reasoning is obvious from your article.Thank you for another excellent article in reality!
The ninth and tenth amendments in the Bill of Rights are there specifically to make your point Robert. The Bill of Rights was promised in order to get the Comstitution ratified as many feared it didn't go far enough in restraining the government from encroaching on our natural, God-given rights. Others worried that highlighting just SOME rights in amendments would imply no others existed. Thus the ninth amendment that says exactly what you said, Robert, but more eloquently, with all due respect. ?
Or as the brilliant NRO editor-at-large, Kevin D. Williamson has put it (quoting from memory): "This is a republic, not a democracy and here's the first ten things you dummies don't get to vote on."
Robert,I totally agree with the second amendment. But as a society we recognize that we don't have a right to own anything. If someone wants to own a nuclear weapon we wouldn't want that. And although that is an extreme example, how do we decide what is proper and what isn't?
I ask because I find this an argument that is often raised by the gun control proponents.
There is no "we" that gets to decide ANYTHING for other individuals! Commit NO aggression against another, and as long as there is no infringement on the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of another, ALL actions are allowed. A free market can and would create effective means of insuring that those who violate the above maxims must pay restitution, as well as being ostracized from committing further violations.
My first gun was a cap gun. Me n my young buddies killed thousands of Japs an' Nazis during The War. All play and imagination, but more attitudinally. Next was my first bb gun. Poor birds! And then my single shot .22 rifle. And .16 gauge shotgun for huntin'. And then, my M1 as a young soldier. Each had its use. And it was ASSUMED we could have or own them. Years later reading poetry, I found a great excerpt in a poem by ee cummings: "Bang is the meaning of a gun. It's a man sez NO!" Yes, law or no, legal or not, I keep a gun FOR PROTECTION of me n mine. And always will.
Great article. I line up with your suggestion. I'm a wuss, and don't own a gun, but I strongly support gun rights, and am SO grateful for those who do carry. (I may become concealed carry if I ever become a widow, but that's not likely.)
"We will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns… ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia." – Prime Minister John Howard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Austral… http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tbp/tbp...
Up to 14 years jail for possession of a prohibited firearm. Up to 7 years for an air gun.
Those of us who are native Texas were taught our gun rights at our fathers knee. I'm female and no
gun totin granny, however, I've had the need to pull a gun on several occasions to protect myself and
young daughter from an intruder who threatened harm. I didn't have to use it but did it scare them
off, oh yes, see how they run !
I am a member of the NRA, and the USCCA, and have been a gun owner for over 10 years, but I am beginning to think gun control might be effective if we can prevent all democrats from owning guns!
What is truly insane about the Lefties trying to restrict gun ownership as a result of this recent shooting (or any of the other acts they choose to reference) is that the very fact a deranged, unhinged Leftie, urged on by the demented rhetoric of other Lefties in the media, Hollywood, etc. needs to be guarded against, and if not for the Capitol Police being armed, many more would have been shot. Self defense against criminals is needed, and the State and its promoters are the BIGGEST criminals of all, and thus the ONLY defense against tyranny is the right to bear arms.
And what no one has stated yet but should be shouted from the rooftops is that the shooter was legally prohibited from owning a gun. He had a domestic violence conviction. So he obtained his firearm ILLEGALLY in the first place! The "gun control" measures in place already didn't stop him, so any more would have also been ignored.
How true! You mean criminals don't pay attention to laws? This is why more laws just make it harder for legitimate ownership, and of course, the thugs will get guns no matter what.
I wouldn't be typing this now if I hadn't had a gun when I needed it. Years ago I caught two men trying to strip my car in the middle of the night and one of them came at me with a knife. When I brought up my gun that was previously hidden behind my back they both suddenly remembered urgent business elsewhere.
According to crime statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), knives are consistently used to kill people far more often than rifles are used. And the numbers aren’t even close: five times as many murders were committed with knives than were committed with rifles last year.
The FBI statistics show that knives have been used as a murder weapon far more often than rifles — even those evil “assault weapons” we hear so much about — for quite a while. In 2013, knives or other cutting instruments were used to kill 1,490 victims. In contrast, rifles were the cause of death of 285 murder victims. Shotguns were used in 308 murders. In 2009, the ratio was very similar: knives were used in five times as many murders as rifles.
I stand up and I want to be counted. The government needs to get completely out of our lives!. NOW! In all totalitarian regimes, as in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, the first thing they do is conviscate guns! Gun ownership is your freedom! Without it you are NOT free, no matter how many other rights and frredoms you claim to have.
Another example of this is the government calling driving a privilege. I don't know how they get away with this nonsense.
We here in Texas tried to sue the state over "driving privileges" back in the 90's I believe. Our argument was we were merely "traveling" and to interfere with that was against the Constitution and violated at least 2 and possibly 3 amendments. The state judge was not happy and threw the case out. We detected genuine fear from our state' masters'. They were not happy….
"Got to talking with one of my correspondents about school. I like to say I graduated third highest in my class, which I did, but my entire graduating class had one homeroom with seats left over. After the bell it became a classroom. Anyway, during hunting season we'd get off the bus some distance from home and hunt bunnies and squirrels, say the last mile or so. It was the year we were no longer allowed to keep our rifles and shotguns in our lockers, we had to put 'em in the room next to the principal's office. It struck us as mildly cockamamie and majorly prissy. Such was my introduction to the slippery slope.". —– An anonymous old-timer….
if we leave it to leftist logic. Swimming pools would be banned because a lot of kids drown, more than from guns. As tragic as rhat is, to ban pools would be idiotic
One item rarely, if ever mentioned is whether or not these shooters were on anti-depressants or other mood stabilizing drugs. Dr. Peter Breggin makes sobering arguments regarding what these drugs do to the physiology of the brain.
If interested, he has a number of convincing ''youtube'' articles.