News & Columns > Dave Henderson > Guns, Death and the Constitution

Guns, Death and the Constitution

By Dave Henderson
Saturday, December 8, 2007

The first reaction after a shooting spree such as the one in Nebraska, are calls to ban the ownership of guns in our society. Gun control is a hot and contentious issue in our country. It has changed the outcome of political elections. The issue will remain a passionate subject.

On a local level, it is also an issue which my business partner, Scott Straley, the founder of RIMOFTHEWORLD.net, and I find ourselves on opposite sides. Some of you will agree with me and some with Scott while some may be somewhere in the middle. Regardless of which side you are on, civil debate may help remove some of the emotion from the issue.

There are over 300 million guns in America in the hands of some 100 million citizens. The gun is as much a part of American culture and history as George Washington and apple pie. Many think the Revolutionary War started over taxation. This is not true. The Revolutionary War started when the English attempted gun control at Lexington and Concord. To this day Americans are an independent lot who value their freedom.

Humans by nature are a violent species. Man has killed each other for as long as they have walked the earth. Before guns, it was the sword. Before the sword, it was the spear, knife or even just a rock. The bottom line is there will always be predators in our society; some people are willing to rely on others to protect them, while others insist on the ability to protect themselves.

The primary reason that guns exist in our society is very simple: to hunt for food and for self-protection. With the invention of the supermarket, hunting has become less necessary for the average person. However, self-protection remains a concern; so much so, that the Founding Fathers of our country found the need to spell it out in the Constitution.

After the Constitution was proposed and the discussion of its ratification became an argument between what are now the political parties. It prompted the writing of a series of essays called the Federalist Papers. Many felt that the Constitution did a good job in laying out the role of government and how it was to operate, but not how the average citizen would be protected from Governmental power. The anti federalists argued that Americans had certain natural rights. To resolve this hole in the Constitution, James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to lay out the rights of the people, not the rights of Government.

Amendment II of the United States Constitution

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.

As we examine the Bill of Rights, it's as clear as day to me the first 10 Amendments were written to address the rights of the people. Yet some attempt to argue that the Second Amendment addresses the rights of the government to control a militia and in today's terms it represents the National Guard.

Let's look at this argument for a moment. I think the best place to find the answer to the collective rights versus individual rights theory is the authors of the document, so I quote.

RICHARD HENRY LEE (Signed Declaration of Independence, introduced resolutions in the Continental Congress to become independent, proposed the Bill of Rights from the beginning, author of Anti-Fed Papers, Congressman and Senator from Virginia):

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." 1788 (Federal Farmer, p.169).

SAMUEL ADAMS (Signed Declaration of Independence, organized the Sons of Liberty, participated in Boston Tea Party, Member of Continental Congress, Governor of Massachusetts):

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the right of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ..." (Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788, p86-87)

JAMES MADISON (Drafted the Virginia Constitution, Member of Continental Congress, Virginia delegate to Constitutional Convention, named "Father of the Constitution", author of Federalist Papers, author of the Bill of Rights, Congressman from Virginia, Secretary of State, 4th President):

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.. (where) ..the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms…." (Federalist Papers #46)

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

Stephen P. Halbrook Constitutional Lawyer and author "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984

"In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."

I argue that the most fundamental of all human rights is the right of self defense and defense of your family. It is very clear to me that the Framers intended for the Bill of Rights to provide an individual right to bear arms.

Does Gun Control Work?

Some countries have attempted to ban the civilian ownership of firearms. Three that come to mind are the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. According to the Centre for Defense Studies in London, the criminal use of handguns increased by 40% in the two years immediately after the 1997 ban on handguns. In the years 1997-1998, 2,648 crimes involving handguns were reported. In 1999-2000, that number had increased to 3,685. Canada has seen similar increases in the violent crime rate and many have labeled the countries attempt at gun registration and confiscation the 80 million dollar boondoggle.

As stated earlier in this writing, there are an estimated 300 million guns in America. Some cities and states have attempted to ban firearms. Washington DC defied the Constitution and banned the possession of guns. The result was the highest violent crime rate in the country. Washington DC's gun laws are now before the Supreme Court and a decision is pending.

Some other states took a different tactic. They offered canceled carry permits to citizens that passed a background investigation and a course on the law and safe use of the weapon. In every case the crime rate in those states dropped.

Gun Control versus Criminal Control

By definition, a criminal does not obey the law so how are we to believe that the criminal will obey any laws controlling the legal possession of guns? There are currently many laws on the books that control the legal ownership of guns. I argue that the legal owner is not the issue. The real issue at hand is our politically-correct, revolving-door justice system. Very few criminals ever serve their full sentence. Many more never serve any time at all. Soft-on-crime judges force counties to release criminals because of over crowding and our citizens compound the problem with a "not in my back yard" mentality when it comes to building a prison. I must ask: would you prefer them locked up in a prison or running your streets? The decision is yours. I like the sheriff in Arizona who builds tent cities in the desert. The criminals get pink underwear and baloney sandwiches 7 days a week. What air-conditioning and cable TV?

The most difficult situation to control is the mentally ill. The shooter in the Nebraska mall reportedly had a five-year history of mental illness. Like the Virginia Tech murders, the warning signs were prolific, yet no one intervened. If you truly remove the emotion from the subject, the gun was nothing more then the tool that was used. If the tool had not been available, do you honestly believe that the killers would not have chosen a different tool? Should we ban cars because far more people are killed in car accidents every year than by guns? After all the people of this country have proven that they can't reliably control their cars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

This article was first published on Friday, December 7, 2007 at 12:00 am. This article has been viewed 1286 times.

Dave Henderson is the Vice-President of Operations for RIMOFTHEWORLD.net and it's parent company Vicinitas, LLC. Dave is the commercial and operational manager for the site.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of RIMOFTHEWORLD.net. This column is copyrighted by Dave Henderson.