Gun Rights and Control

This here is an Essay I wrote for English class.

“An 88 year old woman was in her home, she heard a knock on the door, A stranger was outside, he asked to use her telephone, She let the man in, but instead of using the telephone, he beat her, raped her, and stole 50 dollars, she somehow managed to get a hold of her husband’s gun, and shot the attacker, he was later picked up at the hospital for gunshot wounds.”

This is a story from the Southern Sentinel a newspaper in Ripley, Mississippi. Her story and many like it are found on the first page of the National Rifle Association’s newspaper The American Rifleman these stories serve to highlight the need of firearms for home defense. However, firearms also serve other purposes, such as hunting, fighting back against a tyrannical government, and unfortunately, criminal acts. The Second Amendment to the constitution states “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” but what does this text mean? Does it mean an individual right to bear arms? Or the right of law enforcement and the Army National Guard? I believe this text refers to an Individual right to keep and bear arms by the populace.
The second amendment was written in a time when laws were based off English common law. In fact, our constitution as a whole is influenced heavily by English Common law. In 1803, St. George Tucker, a contemporary English law scholar of the time wrote: “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction”. [Sic] Most gun control advocates claim they wish to ban “assault weapons” and don’t mind “hunting weapons” or the right to hunt. However, most of the founding fathers probably didn’t care about the right to hunt; most were “city-slickers” so why would they include a right to bear arms to preserve the right to hunt? And why would they say “a well-regulated militia”? Most gun-control advocates claim the presence of the term “well-regulated militia” means that the 2nd amendment pertains to the right of the National Guard and Law enforcement only. They often cite Miller v. United States. “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense” (Miller v USA) However, it must be noted that Miller was decided not under the Second Amendment, but under the Interstate Commerce clause, Jack Miller had transported a sawed-off shotgun from Oklahoma, where the firearm was allowed, to Arkansas where it was not. “Misters Jack Miller and Frank Layton 'did unlawfully...transport in interstate commerce from...Claremore...Oklahoma to...Siloam Springs...Arkansas a certain firearm...a double barrel...shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length...at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce...not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code, ...and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order...as provided by Section 1132C”As a result, the case made no significant impact on Gun rights. In July 2008 the Supreme Court decided Heller v District of Columbia. The Issue was whether or not the Handgun ban in Washington DC violated the US Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that the 2nd Amendment applied to the individual, and not the State. “that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning”
Therefore the key words being “right” and “people” In addition the term “militia” as defined in 1793 meant “all males between the ages of 17 and 45 and fit for military service” The founding fathers intended a comprehensive right of the populace to be armed.
Gun control advocates also try to use emotional ploys to gain support for their political agenda, such as Michael Moore in his “documentary” Bowling for Columbine, in which he leaves a picture of a little girl killed in a school shooting in the house of the late Charlton Heston, former president of the National Rifle Association. Like ambulance chasers, they wait for a tragedy so they jump on their soap-box and preach the word of their agenda to the masses at a time when it’s considered “distasteful” to speak against them. What about the 88 year old woman in the opening of this paper? There’s no practical she could’ve fought back hand to hand, A firearm is the only way she had to defend herself. Criminals are often strong people with knowledge of street fighting and access to knives, clubs, or illegally obtained firearms. Often they have no mercy for their victims, for the average John and Jane American, they only way to even the odds against criminals is with a firearm. I don’t care how many people you’ve “shanked” if I hit you with a .38 caliber round at 30 feet away you’re on the ground and I’m safe. Most Americans aren’t Black belt, Navy SEAL/Army Ranger professional knife fighters or hand to hand experts. But only 15 hours worth of training time with a hand gun gives you a competitive edge if, god forbid, you need to defend yourself against such people. While gun control advocates keep using the same familiar names, Columbine, Flint Michigan, Virginia Tech, ect. It must be noted that all the shootings they cite take place in “gun-free zones” what if the School Administrators had access to pistols? What if 18 year old students were allowed to have rifles in their automobiles? What if teachers with concealed carry permits had been allowed to carry on campus? It’s possible that they could’ve stopped the shootings quickly. Gun-control Advocates often point to the School Resource Officer program, while the program does improve school safety, there’s often not enough Law enforcement, often times there is only one SRO for a whole district, usually he’s uniformed, and parks a Marked Law Enforcement Vehicle in the parking lot, any criminal or school shooter can tell whether or not the cop is at school, and probably remove him from the equation while the Officer isn’t looking. It’s harder to tell when people who wear T-shirts and blue jeans have a gun on them, and just knowing that their victim or a passerby might be armed deters most petty criminals, and probably a lot of dangerous ones too. In addition, most criminal firearms are stolen, and a lot are imported from Mexico, so banning firearms will only serve to disarm the populace and leave them defensless against criminal attack, Michael Moore can stow the whining, and “this girl was killed in a shooting” Ambulance chasers are never right when they try to use emotions.
Finally, what gives government the right to decide what law-abiding citizens can keep in their homes? Most of them are never in a position where they need to defend themselves, they’re surrounded by Secret Service, or US Marshals, or State Patrol, or City Police, and in the case of the president, all of the above. Most Americans can’t afford to have a gauntlet of tough looking 6’3’’ guys wearing Smokey Bear hats or Tuxedos and ear pieces protecting them everywhere they go, and most of the places I have to go, police response time in 20 minutes or more. The sad truth is, unless you live across the street from the precinct, the cop’s only job when they get there is to take names and count bodies. In most counties in the US outside of the big cities, there is virtually no police presence, and no way for the people to protect themselves other then with firearms. Mason County In Western Washington for example, has only 46 sworn Deputies to cover 1051 square miles. Police are not likely to arrive in time for any meaningful help. So people have to fend for themselves. When faced with this argument, the gun control croud often brings up arguments about the “Wild West” and how everyone had a gun and lots of people were killed. In fact the “Wild West” as we know it never existed, the famed “Gunfight at the OK Corral” resulted in the deaths of only 3 people, Billy Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Tom McLaury, all at the hands of US Marshals, many similar gunfights were fought through the west, but it was never anything like the giant cowboys and bandits gunfights immortalized by John Wayne and Buck Jones movies. And finally, I’ll discuss these “gun exchange” programs, basically, Gun control groups like the Million Mom March and the Brady Center sometimes offer “incentives” to give up guns, you can exchange a firearm for it’s value in cash. The only problem is, it makes gun crime worse, criminals will often pay far less for guns on the street then market value, so they’ll simply trade in their weapons, then re arm and have cash to spare. It’s not an effective means of dealing with gun crime.
So what measures should the government be allowed to take? The government should have the right to restrict fully-automatic firearms, and heavy military weapons. However, small arms (classed by having a bore .60 caliber or smaller, or any muzzleloading firearm, this definition is set by the Bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives (BATFE)) Felons should not be allowed to possess firearms, nor should people who have been dishonorably discharged from the military, nor those who have been involuntarily admitted to a mental hospital. I think these are reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms. Firearm Ownership is a comprehensive right to law abiding citizens of this nation.

Emotional Hardship

Well, this looks like it, i'm once again single, and I think this time is for good. I'm just dying over here, It's so not fair

But I'll be ok, I got lots of friends, sorry to readers who've been waiting, but i'm going to delay the next post, i'm in grieving, and i don't know when i'll be better.

uhhhhhh

Myths and Lies about the Medieval Crusades

We now live in a system where people don't get the whole truth. Many high school students are taught bogus information in "Religous Education" classes, most of these portray Christians negatively and airbrush Muslim history with absurd claims such as "The Muslims preserved Roman knowledge" or "The Muslims lived peacefully with the Jews and Christians" and that the crusades were "wars of aggression" against "peaceful Muslims". these claims are outright wrong, so to help sort through political correctness that has infiltrated our education system, I'm starting a history series to help separate myths from reality.

MYTH: The Crusades were wars of aggresion against Islam
REALITY: The Crusades were defensive wars fought to contain Islamic aggresion and to Assist the Bynzantine Empire

After the Death of Mohammed Islam spread widely throughout the Bynzantine empire, by force. The Muslims laid waste to every thing in sight, sacked numerous citites, and made it to the Gates of Constantinople. The Seljuk Turks had burned churches in Jerusalem and killed clergy throughout the city. by 1009 AD they had conquered much of the Middle east, causing the Byzantines to put aside the Chism and request help from the West. The West's response was to launch a crusade to aid the Bynzantines, answering a cry for help, not a war of aggresion against the Muslims.

MYTH: Muslims lived peacefully with Jews and Christians until the Crusades
Truth: Not exactly....

The Berbers are a perfect example, during the conquest of Africa many Christian and Jewish berbers were attacked and slaughtered by Muslim berbers. Islam expanded by force throughout Africa as well as Persia. the Persians were destroyed by the Muslims and assimilated by force. The Sassanian empire suffered the same fate. another instance is the Tatar invasions, where muslims set out to pillage, loot, and burn down christian settlements in Eastern Europe

MYTH: ISLAM MADE MANY SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENTS
TRUTH: ISLAM STOLE MOST OF THEM.

Perhaps the biggest lie is the idea that Islam made many scientific accomplishments and preserved the knowledge of the Roman empire, which the European Crusaders "rediscovered" during the crusades. in fact, the Byzantines preserved that knowledge. And the Muslims disregarded it until the Bynzantines began to use the Roman science to make superweapons for their defense (such as "Greek fire") Several Historians have also uncovered evidence that the books of the Library of Alexandria were used as fire fuel. This story is also told by many written accounts from the Medieval era. The Muslims made most of these "advancements" after destroying most of the Bynzantine empire, and thus taking what was left of Byzantine science and copied.