The Supreme Court recently upheld 2nd Amendment rights in a very important case called McDonald v. City of Chicago. The ruling overturned a sweeping gun ban in Chicago in a major victory for gun-rights advocates, the second such victory in two years.
And while many of us cheer, most Americans don’t seem to fully understand what the 2nd Amendment is about or think realistically about guns.
The 2nd Amendment concerns two primary issues:
*It codifies that the government has no power to confiscate guns. Because confiscating guns is the first step that a tyrant takes to control the people.
*It offers citizens individual self protection under what is called Natural Law or God’s Law on which American freedom is based. Under God’s Law, a citizen has the right to self defense. And today self defense means, in most cases, ownership of a gun.
The casual observer may argue that of course we have the right to self defense, that that is a basic human right. But in most nations throughout history, people have had no such right. Indeed most populations through the ages have been subjected to brutality from their own governments, or from violent citizens among them as the government fails to protect them, or selectively protects some people and allows violence against others.
Conservatives know the truth about direct, one-on-one self defense in a free society, that “a gun in the hand is infinitely more valuable than a cop on the phone.” That is why so many people in the very liberal cities of America – including women and many poor people in dangerous minority neighborhoods – are arguing most strenuously for the right to bear arms, as did black retiree Otis McDonald in Chicago. Because they are faced with violence every day and must defend themselves.
Yet we live in a society in which self defense is rarely discussed because the discourse is so often controlled by the political left through the Ancient Media. In fact, every day, we hear that only the police (the government) can protect us and that individual acts of self defense will lead to vigilantism. We hear ad nauseum about people being killed by criminals with guns, i.e., guns as weapons of criminal empowerment, but never that hundreds of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by law-abiding citizens using their own firearms as weapons of crime suppression, i.e., to scare off, injure or kill a criminal.
In fact you routinely hear about hard-working, law-abiding shop owners being prosecuted for responding with deadly force to an armed criminal. This prosecution is part of the leftist agenda to A) incrementally weaken and intimidate citizens in the face of crime; and B) to make citizens more and more reliant on “the government” to protect them, both through the police and through laws.
But police usually act after a crime has been committed, and laws don’t deter criminals. Otherwise we would have no crime.
The third leg of the leftist stool is then that people C) do not need guns for self defense, and the government will control the guns.
Of course, gun control is also part of a feminine/leftist agenda item in that “females are afraid of guns” and therefore nobody should have them. Feminized liberal males are also afraid of guns too, i.e., Tom Hanks, Sam Waterston, other Follywood types, homosexuals etc. So liberals, using a psychological tactic of “projection” then project on the public that it too should be afraid of guns, and that guns should be controlled by government fiat.
One of the most famous cases on the issue of firearms was one in which a black criminal used a gun to commit murder and mayhem against white people whom he hated as a group. On December 7, 1993, anti-white bigot and Jamaican immigrant Colin Ferguson boarded a Long Island Railroad train, killed six and injured 19, all white commuters heading back to the suburbs after a day of work in Manhattan.
Ferguson then was defended gratis by leftist lawyer William Kunstler.
Ferguson is a classic gun case. “We should be talking about the revolution in South Africa and how to get rid of the white people”… and “Kill everybody white!” he was heard to say at Adelphi University on two separate occasions in the early 1990s.
Ferguson bought a gun legally in California using a driver’s license with a motel address on it where he was living. And on the day he killed as many white people as he could, he even waited for the train to roll past the limits of New York City so that the murders would not take place in the city whose black mayor, David Dinkins, Ferguson did not wish to encumber with the crime.
One of the men killed that day was Dennis McCarthy. His wife Carolyn then went on to run for and win a seat in the United States Congress in 1996 as a Democrat on a strong gun-control platform. She still serves in the Congress today.
Yet we have never heard McCarthy or her fellow Democrats talk about the person who killed her husband, that he was an angry black male who hated white people. Or her anger at left-wing Kunstler for defending Ferguson for free. Because black anger against white people is persistently nurtured and defended by the Democrat party, the same Democrats who always want guns controlled and who deny the old gun-owners’ mantra that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.
Imagine if McCarthy ran for Congress on a platform highlighting black bigotry against white people, or anger at Kunstler. She never would have seen the light of day. Yet McCarthy even sued the Olin Corporation, the parent of Winchester Ammunition, for their manufacture of the special bullets used by Ferguson.
Should McCarthy have sued Adelphi University for not alerting police that they had a violent racist on their premises?
Now imagine that New York City did not have one of the strictest gun control laws in America and one of the train’s passengers had been carrying a firearm and had shot Ferguson dead.
That would have been a good thing. But in liberal New York, there would be great pressure to prosecute that passenger for murder, particularly if it was a white person who killed black Ferguson. Because the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers are today opposed to guns in the hands of citizens. Law-abiding citizens, that is. But William Kunstler and his comrades will tell you that guns in the hands of black bigots with rage inside them against white people should be defended.
Now just imagine if, for the last 50 years, we had had tens of thousands of examples of crime prevention connected to gun ownership discussed in the New York Times, on NBC, CNN etc. Or imagine that the laws in every state allowed citizens to carry guns and to use them to stop criminals, and protected those who acted against criminals.
This is what liberals do not want. Because it would be wildly effective in stopping crime. After all, criminals are cowards and only will back down when they are confronted with their own demise.
No, liberals want Americans under the thumb of the government, and never acting on their own. And they do not want the real truth to come out.
On April 16, 2007, a deranged student named Cho Seung Hui killed 5 faculty members and 27 students on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic University in Blacksburg, Virginia. Virginia Tech was and is a ‘gun-free zone’.
A distressed loner, Hui was said to have passed mostly wordlessly through life at Tech, showed signs of extreme mental disorder, and even wrote grossly violent plays for a creative writing class. But killer Hui’s 1st Amendment rights to be a nut and to pen violent plays were scrupulously observed.
Hui’s former English professor, Lucinda Roy, ultimately did nothing except recommend counseling.
In 2005, a Virginia court even declared Hui an imminent threat to others. But special justice Paul Barrett decided that Hui was not crazy enough to be committed to a mental-health facility, which would have red-flagged the legal gun purchase through which Hui obtained his weapon.
And if Virginia Tech were not a gun-free zone, a fellow student might have been able to stop Hui with a bullet.
How about the Columbine High School killers of 1999, who were known to Colorado police and who had made death threats on the internet? Where was ‘the government’ to stop them on the basis of clear advance information?
Answer: ‘The government’ was asleep, or too addicted to political correctness to investigate.
Those murderers based their rampage on the movie Natural Born Killers starring environmental activist Woody Harrelson and directed by Hollywood lefty and fake-pacifist/gun control advocate Oliver Stone based on a screenplay by Hollywood lefty and fake-pacifist/gun control advocate Quentin Tarantino.
No, it was those evil guns that killed all those students, not the people behind them.
The fact is that the old saying is correct: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” And the recent Supreme Court ruling upholds this rational approach to firearms ownership, one of the essential bases for our freedoms.
Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more. You can print out for free my book, Right Is Right, which explains why only conservatism can maintain our freedom and prosperity.