Tweet
The Conservative Voice
Sept 15 2005
Bad Decision, Dangerous Precedent
September 14, 2005 03:30 PM EST
Gun owners and gun owner rights groups across America are rightfully
outraged at the recent decision by New Orleans law enforcement
officials to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens.
According to city officials, while the crisis spawned by Katrina
exists, no one but law enforcement will have guns in New Orleans.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a little something in the
United States Constitution that specifically prohibits this sort of
thing?
New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass made the following
statement to the Washington Post:
"No one will be able to be armed. Guns will be taken. Only law
enforcement will be allowed to have guns."
This should be sufficient to thoroughly frighten any American who
understands the Constitution and recognizes the vital role legal
firearms play in our society. Should this heinous violation of
constitutional rights be allowed to set a precedent, Americans could
truly be in danger of losing our constitutionally protected right to
keep and bear arms. Be glad, my friends, that a Republican presently
resides within the White House. Imagine the consequences of this if a
left-wing, gun-hating liberal occupied the Oval Office? We'd almost
certainly see a push for a federal law mandating that during any
"crisis" Americans could have their guns confiscated "for their own
safety."
Let's take a quick look at some history...
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13
million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
In 1996 the nation of Australia passed a gun ban. Gun owners in
Australia were forced by the new law to surrender 640,381 personal
firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing
Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. Here are the
results cataloged 12 months later:
Australia-wide, homicides were up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults were up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies were up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!)
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms increased by
300 percent.
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this changed drastically upward in the
12 months following the passage of the gun ban, since the criminals
now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There was also a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
elderly. Australian politicians were at a loss to explain how and why
public safety had decreased, after such monumental effort and expense
was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove
conclusively that an armed populace is a safer populace.
Crooks will always have firearms regardless of what laws are passed.
It is the height of stupidity to assume that law-breakers who depend
upon firearms to ply their grisly trade would simply hand over their
guns. All Australia's government did was make things easier for the
crooks!
The city of New Orleans has followed Australia's example. It is only
a matter of time before innocent lives are lost due to this theft of
private property. What will city officials have to say about it when
innocent people die? Will they admit making a mistake? Will the MSM
point out that confiscating legal firearms is not only
unconstitutional, but dangerous to law-abiding citizens?
Obvious answer: No. Of course they won't. If anything the MSM will
either ignore the loss of life or doctor the numbers so that the
policy looks like a success. Liberals will rub their hands together
in glee while they look to find a way to once again pervert the
Constitution to justify a federal law allowing any state or city to
confiscate firearms. This is a liberal dream come true. For normal
folks like you and me, it's a potential nightmare.
If you are unarmed and an armed burglar (trust me, he'll be armed)
breaks into your home at 3:00 AM, what will you do? Call 9-11 and
hope he doesn't hear you making the call? Will you bravely face his
nine-millimeter semi-automatic with a baseball bat? Will you hide
under the bed while he helps himself to all your worldly possessions?
You have the right to use lethal force to defend your home and family
against criminals. You also have a moral obligation to do so. In
today's crazy world, only the craziest believe that legal firearms
are a bad idea. Please contact your congressperson and do your part
to see that such a law can never and will never happen where you
live. It's only a matter of time before the Socialist Left tries to
use the New Orleans incident to further their unholy agenda.
Alan Burkhart is a freelance political writer, cross-country trucker,
and proud citizen of the reddest of the Red States - Mississippi. You
can reach him via e-mail at: [email protected] or by visiting his
website: www.alanburkhart.com.
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=8295
Sept 15 2005
Bad Decision, Dangerous Precedent
September 14, 2005 03:30 PM EST
Gun owners and gun owner rights groups across America are rightfully
outraged at the recent decision by New Orleans law enforcement
officials to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens.
According to city officials, while the crisis spawned by Katrina
exists, no one but law enforcement will have guns in New Orleans.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a little something in the
United States Constitution that specifically prohibits this sort of
thing?
New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass made the following
statement to the Washington Post:
"No one will be able to be armed. Guns will be taken. Only law
enforcement will be allowed to have guns."
This should be sufficient to thoroughly frighten any American who
understands the Constitution and recognizes the vital role legal
firearms play in our society. Should this heinous violation of
constitutional rights be allowed to set a precedent, Americans could
truly be in danger of losing our constitutionally protected right to
keep and bear arms. Be glad, my friends, that a Republican presently
resides within the White House. Imagine the consequences of this if a
left-wing, gun-hating liberal occupied the Oval Office? We'd almost
certainly see a push for a federal law mandating that during any
"crisis" Americans could have their guns confiscated "for their own
safety."
Let's take a quick look at some history...
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13
million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
In 1996 the nation of Australia passed a gun ban. Gun owners in
Australia were forced by the new law to surrender 640,381 personal
firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing
Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. Here are the
results cataloged 12 months later:
Australia-wide, homicides were up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults were up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies were up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!)
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms increased by
300 percent.
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this changed drastically upward in the
12 months following the passage of the gun ban, since the criminals
now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There was also a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
elderly. Australian politicians were at a loss to explain how and why
public safety had decreased, after such monumental effort and expense
was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove
conclusively that an armed populace is a safer populace.
Crooks will always have firearms regardless of what laws are passed.
It is the height of stupidity to assume that law-breakers who depend
upon firearms to ply their grisly trade would simply hand over their
guns. All Australia's government did was make things easier for the
crooks!
The city of New Orleans has followed Australia's example. It is only
a matter of time before innocent lives are lost due to this theft of
private property. What will city officials have to say about it when
innocent people die? Will they admit making a mistake? Will the MSM
point out that confiscating legal firearms is not only
unconstitutional, but dangerous to law-abiding citizens?
Obvious answer: No. Of course they won't. If anything the MSM will
either ignore the loss of life or doctor the numbers so that the
policy looks like a success. Liberals will rub their hands together
in glee while they look to find a way to once again pervert the
Constitution to justify a federal law allowing any state or city to
confiscate firearms. This is a liberal dream come true. For normal
folks like you and me, it's a potential nightmare.
If you are unarmed and an armed burglar (trust me, he'll be armed)
breaks into your home at 3:00 AM, what will you do? Call 9-11 and
hope he doesn't hear you making the call? Will you bravely face his
nine-millimeter semi-automatic with a baseball bat? Will you hide
under the bed while he helps himself to all your worldly possessions?
You have the right to use lethal force to defend your home and family
against criminals. You also have a moral obligation to do so. In
today's crazy world, only the craziest believe that legal firearms
are a bad idea. Please contact your congressperson and do your part
to see that such a law can never and will never happen where you
live. It's only a matter of time before the Socialist Left tries to
use the New Orleans incident to further their unholy agenda.
Alan Burkhart is a freelance political writer, cross-country trucker,
and proud citizen of the reddest of the Red States - Mississippi. You
can reach him via e-mail at: [email protected] or by visiting his
website: www.alanburkhart.com.
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=8295