Column: New Gun-Control … Just Another Fool’s Folly!

By B. Zerker
Weapons Specialist and Constitutionalist
Los Alamos

New Gun-Control … Just Another Fool’s Folly!

For the last few days, I’ve been hearing the endless cries of, “We need more gun-control!” “Ban those evil semi-automatic military assault-weapons! Nobody needs those for hunting!” “Ban all high-capacity magazines,!” etc., all of them now permeating the airwaves in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., tragedy.

I’ve also heard the statement in the past, and I’m paraphrasing, that our Second Amendment’s guarantee that a citizen’s “right to keep and bear arms” is no longer relevant these days because people have the police to protect them and that everyone can now just go to the store to buy food … that guns and hunting are now “passé.”

That statement and ones like it, all by respected TV news commentators, leave me dumbfounded. (And they actually get paid for their inept and ignorant opinions.)

To best understand why any and all gun-control is unconstitutional, we must first understand the intent of the founding fathers … and now boys and girls … today’s history lesson:

Anyone with anything more than excrement ‘twixed their ears knows that preceding the drafting of our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and their ratification in 1789, that our founding fathers had just fought and won the war for our independence against the tyrannical King George III of Britain.

Our Founding Fathers were men of great wisdom and strong character and as such, they understood the faults and frailties of the human condition as they began their “grand experiment.”

They suspected, if not knew at that time, that tyrannical element(s) might one day rear his/her/their ugly head(s) and come to power here. As a check on this, they drafted our Bill of Rights. The first 10 amendments of that document are meant to be “unalienable” rights, without which our Constitution would never have been ratified.

These liberties guarantee to our nation’s citizenry their basic freedoms and our founder’s promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as stated in our Declaration of Independence. In essence, they keep the government out of our private business and off our backs in all lawful matters. 

So, since we’re discussing liberties as to how they pertain to gun rights in this editorial: What were the arms of 1789? They were black powder muskets, flintlocks, and matchlocks. (A few had rifled barrels [rifles] if you could afford and were lucky enough to own one.)

Were they (all of them) the so called “assault weapons” of that day? Damn straight they were! “Arms” were “arms” then, just as they are now! Everyone was armed equally, the government and the citizenry alike. So, with that said and with the understanding that firearms equity, not what might come to be in the future was the issue, I’m sure you’ll agree that the argument that modern gun-prohibitionists continually make, that the Founders could’ve never foreseen the advancements in firearms technology, is about as worthless as a bucket with a hole in it.

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s teeth and keystone under independence.” -George Washington

And with that said … now we must understand that it was every citizen’s duty to keep his/her government on the straight and narrow!

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government.” -Thomas Paine

Our ingenious Founders also created our three equal branches of government: The legislative branch, which writes the laws (laws that are supposed to be in harmony with our existing Constitution freedoms), an executive branch that enacts the laws and a judicial branch to constitutionally interpret and enforce the laws.

Were these jobs meant to be a career? They were not. (Except in the cases of federal justices and judges.) And not because of term limits. They were positions filled by honorable individuals, for little pay, that felt an obligation to serve their country for a time and then return to the farms or the workplaces.

More than not died in poverty. (How things have changed in the last couple of hundred years … huh?)

What type of law did our founders select for our fledgling nation? Good question! They chose a variation of British common law made up of the three constitutionally recognized jurisdictions:

  • The criminal jurisdiction. This jurisdiction protects our rights in criminal matters. Felonies and misdemeanors that violate an individual’s personal liberties, or property crimes;
  • The civil jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is to protect our rights where contracts are concerned. It also allows us to retrieve monetary compensation if/when we are either physically damaged by another’s actions, slandered, or monetarily damaged in some fashion; and
  • The maritime jurisdiction. Admiralty law. The Captain is the master of his/her ship and all who sail on her.

Now that we have that straight, if my firearms damage no one or nothing and our government restricts or bans me from possessing them for something I may or may not ever do with them, to which jurisdiction would I be in violation if I continued to own such arms? Remember, I’ve violated no person’s personal liberties.

Nor have I damaged anyone’s property! And I sure as hell never signed a contract giving up my right to own what I see fit or need to use to protect myself. Surely, it can’t be either of the first two of our three constitutionally recognized jurisdictions.

What if I was to use a banned or restricted firearm to defend myself, or another person, with justifiable deadly force? In our society, do I or do I not have the right to protect myself or someone I care for?

Should I then be classified as a felon and jailed? Or maybe I’ll just be fined and have my own personal private property (the firearm) confiscated?

Wait, as far as I know, defending one’s self or another with deadly force is perfectly legal in all circumstances when one is threatened with grievous bodily injury or death! And again, I never signed a contract saying I wouldn’t do that in a life and death circumstance if I needed to.

Being a gunsmith, if I was to (unknowingly) build, repair or sell a firearm that was sometime later used in a crime or other antisocial act, would I be at fault? I have no control of another’s actions, have personally harmed no one, and again, I have not signed a contract stating that I’d be responsible for someone else’s actions. Should I still then be bankrupted by a lawsuit?

These three examples, along with the only three jurisdictions that our Constitution recognizes, begs the questions: Does our government even have the right to restrict or ban firearms? And: What part of ‘… Shall not be infringed.’ do you not understand?

Sadly, to the disdain of some in our country nowadays, our liberties still include our Second Amendment guarantee. A guarantee that most of us rightly agree was created to ensure all of our liberties.

But, for how long will we continue to retain any liberties as long as we allow our elected civil servants the ability to bastardize our Constitution? Our Founders knew, and rightly so, that there would always be unscrupulous and dangerous types of people among us.

Individuals who would threaten us and our way of life … be they from our government, from another hostile nation, or from threats on our own streets and in our homes.

We’ve all probably asked this question at one time or another: “Where’s a cop when you need him?” Sadly, The answer to that is: There just aren’t enough of them to go around.

That is just one of the reasons we must retain our Second Amendment freedoms … all of them. Our government doesn’t have any right to refuse a free citizenry our right to defend ourselves when they are incapable of assuring our safety.

If they succeed in disarming our nation’s law-abiding populous, can they also assure us that they can disarm the lawless? I think not! They’re criminals! They break the law!

Another reason that we demand our Second Amendment guarantee is the lessons of history: From Russia to Germany and China … from Cambodia to Uganda and in Guatemala, plus in many other countries, after gun-control and arms confiscations were implemented, government sanctioned genocide followed.

There were more than 56 million documented murders in the last century. Oh … that’ll never happen here, you might say … I’ll explain to you in my next column just why this will happen here.

As an example, I’ll give y’all a little tease of what’s going on here right now:

The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was signed into law on Dec. 21, 2011. It contains a provision that suspends the Posse Comitatus Act. With that, that’ll gives the president the power to declare martial law for any reason he perceives to be a national emergency.

The use of U.S. military forces will then be authorized by presidential order and they’ll be deployed on U.S. soil to arrest and detain, or maybe even shoot U.S. citizens/trouble makers down in the streets.

Remember, this is martial law. And all of the arrests and detentions will be without a Writ of Habeas Corpus (the right to trial) because that will be suspended, too. (As anti-gun as they are, even the ACLU is up-in-arms and complaining regarding this.)

But, never fear, a lot of our U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines will refuse their orders. At least I hope a lot of them will, but the ones that do will be disarmed, arrested and thrown into the stockade.

Others may desert. In any case, the ones that follow their orders will join United Nations troops that gladly step in. Great, foreigners on U.S. soil enforcing unconstitutional law. How do you think that’ll fly?

Well we’ll all be disarmed, so there’ll be nothing anybody can do about it anyway. So, you don’t think that will happen here … huh? Did you know that there’s a treaty being fashioned as we speak in the chambers of the socialist-leaning UN that would potentially disarm every private citizen in the U.S.?

Did you also know that this treaty, The UN Small Arms Treaty, has the blessing of our administration and State Department (under the radar of course.) If that treaty is ratified, who do you think Obama and his cronies will get to confiscate our firearms when/if the police, the military and the FBI refuse to go door to door to collect them?  (I do believe that most American law enforcement and military will refuse rather than subjecting themselves to a shooting war against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.) BINGO! Commie UN soldiers…

If you’re reading this and had no idea that any of this is going on, you may be asking yourself why you haven‘t heard anything about it. The answer to that is simple: Most people here in the U.S. are more interested in who’s going to win American Idol or Survivor than they are in their own liberty.

Yes, the news media does report on some of this, but they leave out the things that connect it all and unless you‘re really paying attention and willing to do some research, you’ll never know about it.

One must learn to recognize what information is credible and what is not. Pay attention to the goings on in your communities. Trust what you know about humanity and its failings. Then always keep in mind that what you still don’t know will most likely hurt or kill you.

Many of our politicians and the ultra-wealth, greedy, power-brokers that support them, (The Bilderberg Group, George Soros, the Rothchilds, etc.) have bought and paid for the world’s main-stream media.

Every news service, other than a few of the smaller print or online outlets and possibly FNC, have now been reduced to nothing more than a gaggle of unelected opinion makers for the socialist-leaning powers that be.

They believe that we should only know what they want us to know. And they’re becoming more and more arrogant. They understand that knowledge is power. They, including our government itself, seem to have forgotten their eleventh grade civics lessons. (Either that, or they’ve completely disregarded them.)

In their minds, they seem to believe that they can dictate our behavior and morality in our country even if the laws they pass or support contradict our Constitution. And this has been going on for a long time.

Their (government’s) first encroachment on our rights was with the adoption of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA.) This law prohibited a citizen’s acquisition, ownership and possession of (fully) automatic firearms (machine guns) and short barreled rifles and shotguns … unless of course you paid them a $200 tribute (anything for added revenue) and passed an FBI background check. Was the government still allowed to possess them? Yes they were … and they could use them domestically against us. So much for armaments equality!

Regarding the term “assault weapon” that the media and liberals continually use to make themselves sound knowledgeable about a subject in which they‘re completely ignorant, it’s a complete fabrication by them to convince the layman that these firearms are designed for military use.

They are not. These firearms operate no different than most self-loading hunting rifles and shotguns. The only thing they have in common with their military cousins is their appearance. Yes, they do have pistol grips, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and magazines that do hold more than 10 rounds.

In the previous so called “assault weapons” ban, the brain trust in congress decided that if any firearm possessed three of those four things, they were “Assault Weapons.” I can’t actually recall a time, if ever, that I’ve heard of someone being assaulted with a pistol grip or a flash suppressor or that anyone was ever murdered by being bayoneted to death while being robbed, so that just goes to prove that they’re idiots.

Nor do these arms “spray” bullets like their military cousins. They fire only one round for every depression of their trigger. Also, the media and the liberals’ command of the English language is embarrassing. Assault is a behavior, not a weapon.

Every day in this country, individuals are assaulted with fists, knives, clubs and yes, in a lot of cases, firearms. This is sadly a fact of life. And yes, Newtown, Conn.; Columbine, Colo.; Stockton, Calif.; Killeen, Texas and all other mass shootings are all atrocities!

The fact is though, most of these crimes are committed by deranged or mentally deficient individuals. Not too much you can do about them except maybe identify them, institutionalize them and lock the revolving door at this nation’s nut houses.

As for the cases where the perps are chemically altered psychopaths on psychotropic drugs, http://www.ssristories.com/index.php, which are probably the majority of cases, shouldn’t the doctors or psychiatrists that so freely prescribe these poisons, be held just as responsible as the nutcase who pulls the trigger?

Let’s face it, wouldn’t we all be better off if these psychos and their enablers were all locked up in their rubber rooms, slobbering all over their straight jackets. But, I guess it’s just easier and in the short term, cheaper for the lazy or biased among us to just blame the guns and not the real problems.

There are two bright spots in this dilemma. They are that atrocities such as Newtown, etc., are far less prevalent in states that allow their citizens the ability to freely exercise their Second Amendment liberties.

Also, there are still states that don‘t have, or post signs that state: “Gun Free Zone”, which are in essence, a green light telling all the whack jobs: “No guns here! Come and kill us!  

In conclusion, acts such as Newtown, etc., should never happen in a civilized society. The only truth here is that we are not a civilized society. We lie to ourselves that we are, but because of our own human faults: greed, jealousy, hate, and the desire for things that we can’t have, we may never be.

Gun control or prohibition is not and never will be the answer to this problem. When you outlaw guns, because they have no regard for law, only the outlaws will have guns and society will be even more at risk.

In my opinion, the best solution for our quandary is the ability to shoot back! And that would have to be with the arms they desire to deprive us of.

 

CSTsiteisloaded