POLL: Gun Ownership

Remove all ads!

It isn't. The vast majority of people will never need a gun to defend them. Of course, the vast majority of people will never need cancer treatment or the airbags in their car, so why bother with having either of them? A slight Yogi-ism, "you only need it when you need it".

As far as pepper spray, that is a choice you can make, but realize that it is not 100% effective, even if used properly. Estimates place up to 10% of people as being basically immune to it. Had a buddy that figured out in the Marine Corp that he was immune to tear gas, he would literally roll around in the pixie dust (tear gas is not a gas, it is a fine powder that is almost as light as air, but if you allow it to be still long enough, it will settle to the ground, earning it the nickname pixie dust) and laugh at all the recruits who didn't get their gas masks on in time. In college he decided to find out if he was immune to pepper spray as well, so we bought some, and sprayed him fully in the face and mouth. He said it burned a little, and that he didn't like it, but I can tell you that it didn't affect him enough that he couldn't have still kicked my ass. He didn't even bother going inside to wash his eyes or mouth out, just spit a few times and let the tears wash it out. Then of course you have those who are high, who may or may not react to it in a favorable manner.

Optimistic statement at best.

 

Morgoroth — I agree that mace is a good deterrent, but has one disadvantage. In confined spaces, it becomes a double-edged sword, as diffusion will take its course. On an open street—of course, but the chance of assault on one is lower than in a dark alley.

I find it much better to just teach people self-defence, it's usually better.

As for firearms—I'm not against them. I might even get a gun myself. However, all the guns in the world won't help against more than five–six attackers (ok, maybe some could help), but even then they serve as a deterrent. When you don't know if you are the next one to be hit by a bullet, you hesitate, and when you hesitate, you're less dangerous. heck, this reminds me of a joke:
Sahara Desert, a hundred or so Bedouins are running from a lone black man. Suddenly, one of the Bedouins asks his compatriot:
— Why are we running? There's a hundred of us, and just one man is chasing us.
— Hell knows who's he gonna hit, so keep running.

 

Sorry, been out of it for a little while, but I feel the need to defend myself (though not with a firearm) from some of DW's comments. First of all, I do not support the banning of all firearms. I am only against having handguns with something ridiculous like 20 or 30 rounds in them, and I also am against personal ownership of assault rifles. As Wesley Clark recently said,

I will also assert that my 20% hit ratio is correct if you are talking about professionals who are well trained in their use.

Technically, DW is correct. I am way off base here. Checking the 2004 records, police officers do not hit 20% of the time in high stress situations. It's only 19.4% of the time. That's a national average. The U.S. Army isn't much better either, reporting a hit average in stressful situations to be 21.2%. DW, please keep in mind I work closely with the military, and statistics on hit accuracy are literally at my finger tips. It took me about 10 minutes to find the 2004 statistics.

Now, I will completely agree with DW that the average citizen is not nearly as well-trained nor as practiced as members of a police department or the military. These people usually practice at shooting ranges much more frequently than other people. Baltimore County, where I live requires its officers to spend 8 hours per month at the firing range, and we have the highest hit percentage under stress of any county in the country - and it's first by a significant margin - 32%.

Allowing this though, I would also say that DW is in fact, a WELL-TRAINED and PRACTICED gun owner. If you are, then one can reasonably assume that you can get in the ballpark of what the professionals have in terms of accuracy in high stress situations. If you can't then I must assume that you are either not well-trained, not well-practiced, or both.

Actually it's funny you should bring this up. As I just did sit in one of these 8 days ago. And I must say, it was significantly different than a lot of the other training sessions I've observed, and I did learn a lot. The thing that I was most surprised about was not the percentile chance to hit, but actually how reaction times are slowed when you are under stress. In fact, they are almost twice as long under stress. On a typical shooting range, a soldier can shoot with reasonable accuracy firing shots 0.5 seconds apart. Under high stress situations - when your natural thought would be that a soldier would fire faster - most soldiers slow down to a rate of one shot every 0.9 seconds. Under such situations, the additional 0.4 seconds is critical. You can be pointing your rifle at someone who has a gun at his feet. In 0.9 seconds the person can bend down, pick up the gun point it at you and shoot you in less than 0.9 seconds. In other words even though you have the gun pointed at your target and all you have to do is pull the trigger, you need almost a full second to react and actually do so, at which point, you may very well be shot before you fire.

It is and I do. I think it is completely different position to support limitations on gun ownership as opposed to banning them completely. DW, people like you ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. I don't care if you own 20 different types of hand guns and 20 different types of hunting rifles, because you are among the very large percentage of gun owners who are responsible in gun ownership. I also don't have a problem with people like the one guy I know who is a gun collector. The guy literally has dozens of differet types of guns. Many of them are very old. The funny thing is, one of those guns were illegal with the passage of the assault weapons ban. He didn't own an AK-47 or anything like that. The one that was banned was his revolutionary war rifle. Why you ask? Because the assault weapons ban also affected any rifle that had a mount for a bayonet, which all revolutionary war rifles did in fact have. His rifle actually had a bayonet on it. He's not the problem either. I believe in the right to bear arms with reasonable limitations in place.

 

Aldeth,

Are your statistics limited to firefights? Or do they include sniper shots, and close range single shot confrontations as well?

Since you are so close to the military and police, how many reports of you read where entire magazines were emptied and no one was hit?

Since you have been through the training, would you not agree that a reload is more difficult under stress than when free shooting at the range? Also, did you ever find yourself pulling the trigger on an empty gun (IME a quite common occurrence in stress training)?

Finally, you still never addressed my last question. If you disagree with my stance on the increased vulnerability during a reload, and reloading is not an issue, then why limit the size of a magazine? The BG can just carry more clips and reloading, so why limit the capacity?

 

DW,

Before I answer your questions, I think I should point out that we may be comparing a different set of statistics. Your statistics are only dealing with handguns. For police departments, that's fine as that is the typical weapon used. However, with soldiers, their handgun is typically a backup weapon, with their rifle being the primary weapon.

My statistics do not include sniper shots (and obviously they have a much higher accuracy than 20%). I would argue that these statistics shouldn't be included anyway, as I do not view a sniper as being in an extremely high-stress situation. Yes, it's stressful, but not as stressful as being in a fire fight or close range combat (mostly because your target doesn't know he's your target until he gets hit - at least that's usually the plan). My statistics do include close range single-shot confrontations. They almost have to, as the typical police officer is involved in a whole heck of a lot more of those than fire fights. The document I took it from was comparing the military and police in the U.S. Since most police departments do not have sniper teams, it was further reason that they weren't included in the statistics. I can look up the statistics for snipers if you'd like, but they have to be well in excess of 20%.

That is completely situation dependent. In military maneuvers it is common in fire fights to lay down cover fire, and there the point isn't necessarily to have a high hit percentage, as your target is an area and not a particular person/object. As my reading is more closely related to the military I am not familiar enough with the police departments to say how often it happens. It does happen in the military, but usually in situations when they aren't necessarily trying to hit a specific target. I have never read any report of a soldier attempting to hit a specific target, emptying an entire cartridge, and getting no hits. I'm not saying it can't happen, I just don't think it's a common occurance.

Well of course it is. I would imagine trying to do anything in high stress situations is more difficult than in low stress. I even stated that reaction times go down. It could well take you twice as long to reload in high stress situations, just like it takes twice as long to shoot at a target. Also this is moot as police and military DO commonly carry increased capacity cartidges, and I have no problem with it. This is even true of the Baltimore County Police Department. The standard cartidge has 9 shots, their cartidges have 12.

My point was and is that the actual situation of needing an entire clip to resolve a situation is so remote that it doesn't justify the need for a larger capacity. Sure, I suppose it's possible that you could be involved in a fire fight in or around your home, but WATFO? (WATFO = What are the f'ing odds?)

I'm thinking of the typical home defense situation, where you have one person attempting to break into or has already entered your home. You grab your gun and you methodically make sure the upstairs is secure. Now you're going downstairs to look for the bad guy, a process that is going to take several minutes if you're careful and doing it the right way. My point is simply that he'll be dead, you'll be dead, or he'll be running long before either of you fire 10 shots.

 

DW

"Statistically, there is evidence that an armed populace lowers overall crime rates, including murder. Blaming the boogey man of private gun ownership for violence is not only wrong, it is a disservice to the public. It ignores the real social issues that drive crime, and instead passes responsibility to an inanimate object, rather than taking responsibility for the violent culture American children are raised in."

An interesting statement, which is clearly wrong since the murder rate in the UK, which by the way is probably as comparable as any country with the US in most respects, is way lower than in the US overall.

Now taking the firearms figures out of the equation:

UK - 1045 - 80 = 965 x 6 = 5790 (US population ~ 6times UK)
US - 16200 - 10500 = 5700

See what I mean? The murder rate otherwise is pretty comparable (Homicides, not murders actually) but still. OK UK figures skewed by the Shipman case, but either way comparable.

Other arguments about how it's the illigal guns etc that do the damage are again complete fallacy. You're intelligent. Ask yourself this: How many of those illegal firearms started out being bought and put into the hands of the masses legally? Therein lies the problem.

 

I just wanted to comment on the common theme in the thread suggesting (stating) that if you want a gun for protection you are living your life in fear and what a horrible way to live etc. I read this as being another way of saying, 'we're better than you paranoid crazed cowards.'

You can want a gun for protection and not live your life in fear. Much like you can want a life insurance policy for your family and not live your life in constant fear of dying. Much like you can want health insurance and not live in constant fear of being injured. Some people may view a gun as insurance, not something that they will likely ever need, but handy to have if it is needed.

I'm sure there are some people who want a gun because they do live in fear or are paranoid etc. But painting everyone with a broad brush strikes me as just a way of being dismissive.

 

Viking,

Your statistical analysis is simplistic to the point of irrelevance. It is the equivalent of saying, the 20% drop in apple yields in Washington is related to a 20% drop in orange yields in Florida. The two may or may not be related, but due to the diversity of geographical location, there is likely nothing to tie them to each other, and saying that a just because they have a common number means that the same issue caused the reduction is a logical fallacy. Such a study, could it even be completed would be much more complex and would require the inclusion of multiple nations on both sides of the gun control issue.


There is evidence, that in many states, the crime rates actually materially drop after the passing of concealed carry permits to private citizens. How do you explain that?

Concealed guns reduce crime

 

OK DW - more guns make for a safer society. Great statement. 8200 people were killed with a handgun in the US in 2002. Please tell me that the problem here isn't too many guns, but rather too few. Go on.

Guns kill too easily regardless of who has them. The only way to kerb that is to kerb the number of guns. Statistically I'm sure my chance of getting mugged in the UK isn't that much less than the US, but I know I'm damned less likely to get shot or killed in the process.

 

Cars kill too easily as well (well not really, just like guns, irresponsible people operating the car kill, but it is easier to demonize a gun ), so by you logic, I guess we should ban them as well as anything else that can be used irresponsibly to kill people.

8,200? Per the NHTSA there were 16,654 people killed by drunk drivers in 2004. Anybody up for making alcohol illegal?

 

Scraping the bottom of the barrel now mate.

 

You two are both wrong!

I think gun control is insignificant when compared to the amount of homicides. I'm positive that Viking could come up with a statistic claiming that strict gun control reduces crime. In my view both statistics would be complete . There are several sociological and economical differences between the UK and the US which I'm quite certain affect those numbers a lot more than gun control.

In Finland strict gun control would be useless. We have a jolly good eastern neighbour with a LOT of guns just ready to be smuggled to our black markets. I myself know quite a few people owning an illegal gun. I don't know how easy it would be in the US to get one but atleast here it would be very easy.

That could have been read between the lines from my post so I feel obliged to respond.

I find the need of a gun for self protection just silly because it's so likely that you'll never use the gun. I consider people owning guns for self protection a wee bit paranoid, yes but I'm not against them owning guns. They can have a gun as long as they A) can shoot B) show that they are responsible with the thing and don't accidently misplace it on the table at Mcdonalds or something and C) don't kill people with it.

The major difference is of course that it is way more likely for you to die in an accident or get hurt than being forced to shoot someone (unless your line of work requires it). The other difference is that insurances are pieces of paper and unless you kill people with paper cuts (that would be just plain nasty) they are not as dangerous as guns. Owning a gun for self defence is like owning a protective suit against nuclear attack. Both I consider to be a bit paranoid but otherwise OK.

EDIT: Fixed a sentence which I had not even completed. Writing when you're tired has its costs.

[ April 22, 2005, 09:41: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

Cars are not made to kill people, alcohol is not made to kill people and drink driving is already illegal in all countries I've ever been to including the US.

Guns are made to kill people with. This is not a side effect or accidental. That is what they are made for.

 

Why is it that when it finally comes down to logic, all those in favor of gun control can do is demonize a piece of inanimate iron?

Viking, your argument in hypocritical and full of holes. Guns protect far more people than they injure or kill. This is why every study that says if you own a gun it is XX times more likely to kill or injure an innocent person. Of course that doesn't take into account the hundreds of thousands of times that its presentation caused the potential perpetrator to change their mind about the crime, without a shot ever being fired.

To turn your argument completely around on you, it cannot be denied that guns provide positive as well as negative consequences upon society, thus there is an argument to keep them. Alcohol provides no benefit to society, and creates many woes, but it is not demonized because more people enjoy (and abuse) it. How many more times likely are you to be killed or injured by a drunk driver than a handgun?

So for the 9k people who die from the illegal use of a gun, a hundred thousand people (+) are able to use them to protect themselves. How do you justify the 16k people who die because of alcohol?

By the way, it is illegal to shoot someone without cause, and that is about as effective at stopping the illegal use of guns as drunk driving laws are at stopping driving under the influence.

As well as being false, that is a blatant red herring. Defensive firearms and ammunition are designed to incapacitate people, as efficiently as possible. Hunting rifles and ammunition, and some military arms are designed to kill as efficiently as possible. Ask a cop if he ever has or ever will "shoot to kill". He will tell you no, that he shoots for the center of mass as it gives him the best chance of stopping the perp. Even front line military small arms are not designed to kill. A wounded person requires the care of another person, and demoralizes those around him, removing the threat of more than one person (even if it is only fractionally more than one, as in a medic for a squad). A clean kill only removes the one soldier.

Finally I would like to address something you said before.

This actually kind of ticks me off, as I never said it. My argument is that an armed populace discourages crime. Gun ownership does not equal armed. Armed means having a weapon on your person. Criminals don't like armed citizens, because it takes away their advantage. When Florida passed its concealed carry law, guess what was the only population to see an increase in crime...foreign tourists. It is not unreasonable to believe that criminals realize that differentiating among Americans to determine who might be armed an who might not is problematic, so why not target a segment that you know couldn't be armed, foreign tourists. I am not asking the gov't to hand out guns and arm every citizen. As I have stated, it takes a dedicated person to be a responsible gun owner, and it is even a heavy responsibility to be a concealed carry permit holder. Those willing to make such a commitement should be allowed to do so, and the majority of those people already own at least one gun.

Morgoroth,

Well said!

 

I'm still not sure how this explains the lower crime amongst the unarmed population where I live.

Maybe its horses for courses and that in some countries having guns reduces crime and in other countries it doesn't.

I'm still glad that you are NOT allowed to carry a gun around over here.

 

As Mogoroth said, there are cultural differences. That is a topic for another thread.

Suffice it to say, that guns do not drive people to do violent acts, and the real causes behind such actions are far to broad for this thread. If guns were legalized there, and eveyone bought one, would it increase the crime rate? I don't think so. Additionally, no amount of laws are going to prevent the influx of guns to the US, or boarders are just too large. Guns are easier to smuggle than drugs (a good dip in the ocean is a detrimental to most illicit drugs).

 

Point may well be that the availability of guns increases the escalation potential of conflicts, simply as a rsult of 'firepower'. IMO the problem in the US is that there are that many guns around already that the problem has manifested and consolidated itself.

One who shoots a potential burglar who in fact was just lost or about bringing the newspaper or whatever, would have probably not killed the wrong man had he, say, a knife. I think that guns because of the advantage of distance are more dangerous per se. It's easier to kill with a gun.

And then I think that "Not guns kill, people do!" and "only law abiding citizens give up their guns, criminals don't!" are polemic catchphrases that have a high emotional value but offer about nothing else.

There was this book "More guns, less crime" by one John Lott, for which I found a nice comment on the Amazon page for that book:

I don't want to go into detail on the book as I haven't read it, but I think the "more guns = safer" approach is not necessarily logicaly consistent, let alone neccessarily sensible.

Gun ownersip in the US is IMO first of all an emotional issue. One can rant and argue till the end of days and achieve nothing. Not necessarily because people in the US are unreasonable, just because they are IMO ideological on the gun issue.

 

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Mao Tse-tung

One of the very few truths the man ever uttered.

Remember that... especially when the people have no guns and your personal political persuasion isn't at the seat of political power.

After all... from a historical perspective... have things really changed that much... has the heart of man ever really "evolved" or reformed... it was only 62 years ago that my grandfather liberated Auschwitz... from where he rescued the woman who would become my grandmother... of her nine brothers and sisters only her and one sister survived... both of her parents were executed in front of her by "police".

What is the price of freedom?

It is personal responsibility.

The only question is are you willing to pay it?

Here in America... that answer... so far... is yes.

Sincerest regards,
HOM

Freedom and Firearms

Senator Tom McClintock
Date: June 9, 2001
Publication Type: Speech or Statement GO BACK

A Speech by Senator Tom McClintock
Western Conservative Conference, Los Angeles, June 9, 2001
There are two modern views of government that begin from entirely different premises.

There is the 18th Century American view propounded by our nation’s founders. They believed, and formed a government based upon that belief, that each of us is endowed by our creator with certain rights that cannot be alienated, and that governments are instituted to protect those rights. This view is proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and reflected in the American Bill of Rights.

The second view is 19th Century German in origin and expressed in the philosophies of Marx and Hegel and Nietzsche. It is a restatement of philosophies of absolutism that have plagued mankind for millennia. In this view, rights come not from God, but from the state. What rights you have are there because government has given them to you, all for the greater good – defined, of course, by government.

In the 20 years I have been actively engaged in public policy, I have seen the growing influence of this 19th Century German view. It disdains the view of the American Founders. It rejects the notion of inalienable rights endowed equally to every human being by the “laws of nature and of nature’s God.” In this view, it is the state, and not the individual, where rights are vested.

I mention this, because of a debate that occurred last week on the floor of the State Senate. It was a debate that occurred under the portrait of George Washington and the gold-emblazoned motto, “Senatoris Est Civitatis Libertatum Tueri” – “The Senators protect the Liberty of the Citizens.”

At issue was a measure, SB 52, which will require a state-issued license to own a firearm for self-defense. To receive a license, you would have to meet a series of tests, costs and standards set by the state.

We have seen many bills considered and adopted that would infringe upon the right of a free people to bear arms. But this was the most brazen attempt in this legislature to claim that the very right of self-defense is not an inalienable natural right at all, but is rather a right that is licensed from government; a right that no longer belongs to you, but to your betters, who will license you to exercise that right at their discretion.

During the debate on this measure, which passed the Senate 25 to 15, I raised these issues. And I would like to quote to you the response of Senator Sheila Kuehl, to the approving nods of the Senators whose duty is to protect the liberty of the citizens.

She said, “There is only one constitutional right in the United States which is absolute and that is your right to believe anything you want.”

I want to focus on that statement. “The only constitutional right which is absolute is your right to believe anything you want.”

Now, compare that to the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

What rights have a slave? There is only one: a slave can think anything he wants: as long as he doesn’t utter it or act on it – he may think what he wants. He has no right to the fruit of his labor; no right to self-defense, no right to raise his children, no right to contract with others for his betterment, no right to worship – except as his master allows. He has only the right to his own thoughts. All other rights are at the sufferance of his master – whether that master is a state or an owner.

Now, let us continue to look at this new constitutional principle propounded by Senator Kuehl, under the portrait of George Washington to the delight of her colleagues whose duty, according to the proud words above them, is to “Protect the Liberty of the Citizens.”

She continued, “Other than that, (the right to your own thoughts) government has the ability to say on behalf of all the people – I will put it in the colloquial way as my grandmother used to – your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. It’s a balance of your rights and my rights because we all have constitutional rights. And the question for government is how do we balance those rights?”

Indeed, the right to swing your fist does end where my nose begins. An excellent analogy. Shall we therefore amputate your fist so that you can never strike my nose? And would you deny me the use of my own fist to protect my nose?

Senator Kuehl and her colleagues believe government has the legitimate authority to do so. It is simply the question of balancing.

It is very important that we understand precisely what Senator Kuehl and the Left are saying.

A thief balances your right to your wallet against his right to eat. A murderer balances your right to life against his right to freedom. A master balances your right to “work and toil and make bread,” against his right to eat it. These are matters of balance.

The American view is quite different. In the view of the American Founders, the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God endow each of us with rights that are inalienable, and we are each equal in those rights. It is not a balancing act. These rights are absolute. They cannot be alienated.

But in a state of nature, there are predators who would deny us those rights. And thus we come together to preserve our freedom. In the American view, the only legitimate exercise of force by one person over another, or by one government over its people, is “to secure these rights.”

Senator Kuehl continues, “My right to defend myself in the home does not extend to my owning a tank, though that would make sense to me, perhaps, that no one would attack my home if I had a tank sitting in the living room.”

Let us put aside, for a moment, the obvious fact that a tank is only an instrument of self-defense against a power that employs a tank. But let us turn to the more reasonable side of her argument: that rights can be constrained by government; that there is, after all, “no right to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. How can a right be absolute and yet constrained by government?

To Senator Kuehl and the Left, the answer is simply, “it’s easy -- whenever we say so.” Or, in her words, “government has the ability to say (so) on behalf of all the people.”

The American Founders had a different view, also, not surprisingly, diametrically opposed to Senator Kuehl’s way of thinking.

The right is absolute. In a free nation, government has no authority to forbid me from speaking because I might shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Government has no authority to forbid me from using my fist to defend myself because I might also use it to strike your nose. And government has no authority to forbid me from owning a firearm because I might shoot an innocent victim.

Government is there to assure that the full force of the law can be brought against me if I discharge that right in a manner that threatens the rights of others. It does not have the authority to deny me those very rights for fear I might misuse them.

Senator Kuehl continues, “In my opinion, this bill is one of those balances. It does not say you cannot have a gun. It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says if you are going to be owning and handling and using a dangerous item you need to know how to use it, and you need to prove that you know how to use it by becoming licensed.”

How reasonable. How reassuring. How despotic.

We must understand what they are arguing, because it is chilling. They are arguing that any of our most precious rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights – any at least they decide are conceivably dangerous -- may only be extended through the license of the government.

If that is the case, they are not rights. With that one despotic principle, you have just dissolved the foundation of the entire Bill of Rights. You have created a society where your only right is to your own thoughts.

Inalienable rights are now alienated to government, and government may extend or refuse them upon its whim – or more precisely, upon a balancing act to be decided by government. Let us follow – in our minds at least – a little farther down this path.

Hate groups publish newsletters to disseminate their hatred and racism. Sick individuals in our society act upon this hatred. The Oklahoma City bombing killed a score of innocent children. Shouldn’t we license printing presses and Internet sites to prevent the pathology of hate from spreading? Such an act doesn’t say you cannot have a press. It does not say you cannot express yourself. It says if you are going to be owning and handling a printing press, you should know what not to say and prove that you can restrain yourself by becoming licensed.

And what are we to do about rogue religions like those that produced Heaven’s Gate and Jonestown. How many people around the world are killed by acts of religious fanaticism every year? Should we not license the legitimate churches? Such an act doesn’t say you cannot have a church. It does not say you cannot worship. It says if you are going to be running and conducting a church, that you must know how to worship and prove that you know how by becoming licensed.

The only right you have is the right to believe anything you want. The only right of a slave. The rest is negotiable – or to use the new word, “balanceable.”

In 1838, a 29 year old Abraham Lincoln posed the question for which he would ultimately give his life. Years later, he would debate Stephen Douglas, who argued that freedom and slavery were a matter of political balance. But in this speech, he spoke to the larger question that we must now confront:

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

The American Founders worried about the same thing. Late in life, Jefferson wrote to Adams, "Yes we did create a near perfect union; but will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom. Material abundance is the surest path to destruction."

And as I listened to Senator Kuehl proclaim that “the only constitutional right in the United States which is absolute … is your right to believe anything you want,” and as I gazed at the portrait of George Washington, and as I thought about the solemn words, “the Senators Protect the Liberty of the Citizens,” I couldn’t help but think of an aide to George Washington by the name of James McHenry, who accompanied the General as they departed Independence Hall the day the Constitution was born. He recorded this encounter between Benjamin Franklin and a Mrs. Powell. She asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Answered Dr. Franklin, "A republic, madam, if you can keep it."

For this generation, that is no longer a hypothetical question. History warns us that to one generation in five falls the duty – the highest duty and the most difficult duty of this Republic – to preserve the liberty of the citizens. It is the most difficult, because as Lincoln warned, it is a threat that springs up not on a foreign shore where we can see it – it springs up amongst us. It cannot be defeated by force of arms. It must be defeated by reason.

Have you noticed yet, that ours is that generation? And how ironic it would be that the freedoms won with the blood of Washington’s troops, and defended by so many who followed, should be voluntarily thrown away piece by piece by a generation that had become so dull and careless and pampered and uncaring that it lost the memory of freedom.

The Athenian Democracy had a word for “citizen” that survives in our language today. “Politikos.” Politician. The Athenians believed that a free people who declare themselves citizens assume a duty to declare themselves politicians at the same time. It is time we took that responsibility very seriously.

In 1780, the tide had turned in the American Revolution, and the Founders began to sense the freedom that was within sight. John Adams wrote these words to his wife that spring. He said, "The science of government it is my duty to study, more than all other sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take the place of, indeed exclude, in a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain."

Ladies and gentlemen, the debate is not about guns. It is about freedom. And the wheel has come full circle. Our generation must study politics that we may restore the liberty that our parents and grandparents expect us to pass on to our children and grandchildren.

If we fail, what history will demand of our children and grandchildren, in a society where their only right is to their own thoughts, is simply unthinkable. And be assured, history will find it unforgivable. A generation that is handed the most precious gift in all the universe – freedom – and throws it away -- deserves to be reviled by every generation that follows – and will be, even though the only right left to them is their own thoughts.

But if we succeed in this struggle, we will know the greatest joy of all – the joy of watching our grandchildren secure with the blessings of liberty, studying arts and literature in a free nation and under God’s grace, once again.

Ladies and Gentlemen, isn’t that worth devoting the rest of our lives to achieve?

 

"There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics."
I say forget gun control laws. Make MACE (which is currently illegal for civilians) and ranged tazers legal and easily accesable. How many people are going to break into a house where everyone has at least one of the two? Sure, some people are immune to pepper spray. MACE is more potent and a different chemical and no one is immune to electricity. (Please, no jokes about robes of electrical resistance.) At the same time, neither of these kill and both make a very public scene, so they won't be THAT good for crime, but great for detering crime.