Time: Wed Jun 11 21:49:53 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA01853; Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:49:46 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:48:48 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: "A Nation of Cowards" (fwd) <snip> > >******************************************************************** >"A Nation of Cowards" was published in the Fall, '93 issue of The >Public Interest, a quarterly journal of opinion published by National >Affairs, Inc. > >Single copies of The Public Interest are available for $6. Annual >subscription rate is $21 ($24 US, for Canadian and foreign >subscriptions). Single copies of this or other issues, and >subscriptions, can be obtained from: > > The Public Interest > 1112 16th St., NW, Suite 530 > Washington, DC 20036 > >(C) 1993 by _The Public Interest_. >============================================================================ >=== > A Nation of Cowards > > Jeffrey R. Snyder > > > OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of >self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in >history. Our entire popular culture -- from fashion magazines to the >cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, >and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and >self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent >notion that helping someone entails increasing that person's >"self-esteem"; that if a person properly values himself, he will >naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, >responsible member of society. > And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality >and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement >establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the >threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the >attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, >there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion >quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the >risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may >acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which >really sends shivers down a rapist's spine, the portable cellular >phone. > Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly >calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who >believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination >passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? >How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the >goods? > The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The >advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods >is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and >that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the >outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal >violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social >contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." >For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not >about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, >someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media >that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about >property. > Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but >also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the >individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging >in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime >always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of >enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth >your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it >can hardly be said to exist. > > The gift of life > > Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely >believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life >when offered violence was to hold God's gift in contempt, to be a >coward and to breach one's duty to one's community. A sermon given in >Philadelphia in 1747 unequivocally equated the failure to defend >oneself with suicide: > > He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no > authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, > incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek > the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature > to defend itself. > > "Cowardice" and "self-respect" have largely disappeared from public >discourse. In their place we are offered "self-esteem" as the >bellwether of success and a proxy for dignity. "Self-respect" implies >that one recognizes standards, and judges oneself worthy by the degree >to which one lives up to them. "Self-esteem" simply means that one >feels good about oneself. "Dignity" used to refer to the self-mastery >and fortitude with which a person conducted himself in the face of >life's vicissitudes and the boorish behavior of others. Now, judging >by campus speech codes, dignity requires that we never encounter a >discouraging word and that others be coerced into acting respectfully, >evidently on the assumption that we are powerless to prevent our >degradation if exposed to the demeaning behavior of others. These are >signposts proclaiming the insubstantiality of our character, the >hollowness of our souls. > It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without >talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime >is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, >permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not >fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is >not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and >prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd >technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a >nation of cowards and shirkers. > > Do you feel lucky? > > In 1991, when then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh released the >FBI's annual crime statistics, he noted that it is now more likely that >a person will be the victim of a violent crime than that he will be in >an auto accident. Despite this, most people readily believe that the >existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take >full measures to protect themselves. The police, however, are not >personal bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime, >both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. >As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect >anyone in particular. You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you >from being the victim of a crime. > Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very >good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of >them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet >your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you >actually need them. > Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a robbery, or a rape, >you will find it very difficult to call the police while the act is in >progress, even if you are carrying a portable cellular phone. >Nevertheless, you might be interested to know how long it takes them to >show up. Department of Justice statistics for 1991 show that, for all >crimes of violence, only 28 percent of calls are responded to within >five minutes. The idea that protection is a service people can call to >have delivered and expect to receive in a timely fashion is often >mocked by gun owners, who love to recite the challenge, "Call for a >cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up >first." > Many people deal with the problem of crime by convincing themselves >that they live, work, and travel only in special "crime-free" zones. >Invariably, they react with shock and hurt surprise when they discover >that criminals do not play by the rules and do not respect these >imaginary boundaries. If, however, you understand that crime can occur >anywhere at anytime, and if you understand that you can be maimed or >mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider whether you >are willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life in >the hands of others. > > Power and responsibility > > Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to >protect it? If you believe that it is the police's, not only are you >wrong -- since the courts universally rule that they have no legal >obligation to do so -- but you face some difficult moral quandaries. >How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to >protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? >Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is >of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay >him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to >use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon >another to do so for you? > Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because >the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what >they are doing but you're a rank amateur? Put aside that this is >equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano >and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these >special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of >us mere mortals? > One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to >his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of >fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or >grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to >rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that >is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of >avoidance. Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in >the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal >violence. > Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that >can be wielded effectively by almost anyone -- the handgun. Small and >light enough to be carried habitually, lethal, but unlike the knife or >sword, not demanding great skill or strength, it truly is the "great >equalizer." Requiring only hand-eye coordination and a modicum of >ability to remain cool under pressure, it can be used effectively by >the old and the weak against the young and the strong, by the one >against the many. > The handgun is the only weapon that would give a lone female jogger >a chance of prevailing against a gang of thugs intent on rape, a >teacher a chance of protecting children at recess from a madman intent >on massacring them, a family of tourists waiting at a mid-town subway >station the means to protect themselves from a gang of teens armed with >razors and knives. > But since we live in a society that by and large outlaws the >carrying of arms, we are brought into the fray of the Great American >Gun War. Gun control is one of the most prominent battlegrounds in our >current culture wars. Yet it is unique in the half-heartedness with >which our conservative leaders and pundits -- our "conservative elite" >-- do battle, and have conceded the moral high ground to liberal gun >control proponents. It is not a topic often written about, or written >about with any great fervor, by William F. Buckley or Patrick >Buchanan. As drug czar, William Bennett advised President Bush to ban >"assault weapons." George Will is on record as recommending the repeal >of the Second Amendment, and Jack Kemp is on record as favoring a ban >on the possession of semiautomatic "assault weapons." The battle for >gun rights is one fought predominantly by the common man. The beliefs >of both our liberal and conservative elites are in fact abetting the >criminal rampage through our society. > > Selling crime prevention > > By any rational measure, nearly all gun control proposals are >hokum. The Brady Bill, for example, would not have prevented John >Hinckley from obtaining a gun to shoot President Reagan; Hinckley >purchased his weapon five months before the attack, and his medical >records could not have served as a basis to deny his purchase of a gun, >since medical records are not public documents filed with the police. >Similarly, California's waiting period and background check did not >stop Patrick Purdy from purchasing the "assault rifle" and handguns he >used to massacre children during recess in a Stockton schoolyard; the >felony conviction that would have provided the basis for stopping the >sales did not exist, because Mr. Purdy's previous weapons violations >were plea-bargained down from felonies to misdemeanors. > In the mid-sixties there was a public service advertising campaign >targeted at car owners about the prevention of car theft. The purpose >of the ad was to urge car owners not to leave their keys in their >cars. The message was, "Don't help a good boy go bad." The implication >was that, by leaving his keys in his car, the normal, law-abiding car >owner was contributing to the delinquency of minors who, if they just >weren't tempted beyond their limits, would be "good." Now, in those >days people still had a fair sense of just who was responsible for >whose behavior. The ad succeeded in enraging a goodly portion of the >populace, and was soon dropped. > Nearly all of the gun control measures offered by Handgun Control, >Inc. (HCI) and its ilk embody the same philosophy. They are founded >on the belief that America's law-abiding gun owners are the source of >the problem. With their unholy desire for firearms, they are creating >a society awash in a sea of guns, thereby helping good boys go bad, and >helping bad boys be badder. This laying of moral blame for violent >crime at the feet of the law-abiding, and the implicit absolution of >violent criminals for their misdeeds, naturally infuriates honest gun >owners. > The files of HCI and other gun control organizations are filled with >proposals to limit the availability of semiautomatic and other firearms >to law-abiding citizens, and barren of proposals for apprehending and >punishing violent criminals. It is ludicrous to expect that the >proposals of HCI, or any gun control laws, will significantly curb >crime. According to Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol, >Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) statistics, fully 90 percent of violent >crimes are committed without a handgun, and 93 percent of the guns >obtained by violent criminals are not obtained through the lawful >purchase and sale transactions that are the object of most gun control >legislation. Furthermore, the number of violent criminals is minute in >comparison to the number of firearms in America -- estimated by the ATF >at about 200 million, approximately one-third of which are handguns. >With so abundant a supply, there will always be enough guns available >for those who wish to use them for nefarious ends, no matter how >complete the legal prohibitions against them, or how draconian the >punishment for their acquisition or use. No, the gun control proposals >of HCI and other organizations are not seriously intended as crime >control. Something else is at work here. > > The tyranny of the elite > > Gun control is a moral crusade against a benighted, barbaric >citizenry. This is demonstrated not only by the ineffectualness of gun >control in preventing crime, and by the fact that it focuses on >restricting the behavior of the law-abiding rather than apprehending >and punishing the guilty, but also by the execration that gun control >proponents heap on gun owners and their evil instrumentality, the NRA. >Gun owners are routinely portrayed as uneducated, paranoid rednecks >fascinated by and prone to violence, i.e., exactly the type of person >who opposes the liberal agenda and whose moral and social >"re-education" is the object of liberal social policies. Typical of >such bigotry is New York Gov. Mario Cuomo's famous characterization of >gun-owners as "hunters who drink beer, don't vote, and lie to their >wives about where they were all weekend." Similar vituperation is >rained upon the NRA, characterized by Sen. Edward Kennedy as the >"pusher's best friend," lampooned in political cartoons as standing for >the right of children to carry firearms to school and, in general, >portrayed as standing for an individual's God-given right to blow >people away at will. > The stereotype is, of course, false. As criminologist and >constitutional lawyer Don B. Kates, Jr. and former HCI contributor >Dr. Patricia Harris have pointed out, "[s]tudies consistently show >that, on the average, gun owners are better educated and have more >prestigious jobs than non-owners.... Later studies show that gun >owners are less likely than non-owners to approve of police brutality, >violence against dissenters, etc." > Conservatives must understand that the antipathy many liberals have >for gun owners arises in good measure from their statist utopianism. >This habit of mind has nowhere been better explored than in The >Republic. There, Plato argues that the perfectly just society is one >in which an unarmed people exhibit virtue by minding their own business >in the performance of their assigned functions, while the government of >philosopher-kings, above the law and protected by armed guardians >unquestioning in their loyalty to the state, engineers, implements, and >fine-tunes the creation of that society, aided and abetted by myths >that both hide and justify their totalitarian manipulation. > > The unarmed life > > When columnist Carl Rowan preaches gun control and uses a gun to >defend his home, when Maryland Gov. William Donald Schaefer seeks >legislation year after year to ban semiautomatic "assault weapons" >whose only purpose, we are told, is to kill people, while he is at the >same time escorted by state police armed with large-capacity 9mm >semiautomatic pistols, it is not simple hypocrisy. It is the workings >of that habit of mind possessed by all superior beings who have taken >upon themselves the terrible burden of civilizing the masses and who >understand, like our Congress, that laws are for other people. > The liberal elite know that they are philosopher-kings. They know >that the people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of >just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their >society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable -- and the >liberal elite know how to fix things. They are going to help us live >the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to >do it. And they detest those who stand in their way. > The private ownership of firearms is a rebuke to this utopian zeal. >To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts >from the state. It is to reserve final judgment about whether the >state is encroaching on freedom and liberty, to stand ready to defend >that freedom with more than mere words, and to stand outside the >state's totalitarian reach. > > The Florida experience > > The elitist distrust of the people underlying the gun control >movement is illustrated beautifully in HCI's campaign against a new >concealed-carry law in Florida. Prior to 1987, the Florida law >permitting the issuance of concealed-carry permits was administered at >the county level. The law was vague, and, as a result, was subject to >conflicting interpretation and political manipulation. Permits were >issued principally to security personnel and the privileged few with >political connections. Permits were valid only within the county of >issuance. > In 1987, however, Florida enacted a uniform concealed-carry law >which mandates that county authorities issue a permit to anyone who >satisfies certain objective criteria. The law requires that a permit >be issued to any applicant who is a resident, at least twenty-one years >of age, has no criminal record, no record of alcohol or drug abuse, no >history of mental illness, and provides evidence of having >satisfactorily completed a firearms safety course offered by the NRA or >other competent instructor. The applicant must provide a set of >fingerprints, after which the authorities make a background check. The >permit must be issued or denied within ninety days, is valid throughout >the state, and must be renewed every three years, which provides >authorities a regular means of reevaluating whether the permit holder >still qualifies. > Passage of this legislation was vehemently opposed by HCI and the >media. The law, they said, would lead to citizens shooting each other >over everyday disputes involving fender benders, impolite behavior, and >other slights to their dignity. Terms like "Florida, the Gunshine >State" and "Dodge City East" were coined to suggest that the state, and >those seeking passage of the law, were encouraging individuals to act >as judge, jury, and executioner in a "Death Wish" society. > No HCI campaign more clearly demonstrates the elitist beliefs >underlying the campaign to eradicate gun ownership. Given the >qualifications required of permit holders, HCI and the media can only >believe that common, law-abiding citizens are seething cauldrons of >homicidal rage, ready to kill to avenge any slight to their dignity, >eager to seek out and summarily execute the lawless. Only lack of >immediate access to a gun restrains them and prevents the blood from >flowing in the streets. They are so mentally and morally deficient >that they would mistake a permit to carry a weapon in self-defense as a >state-sanctioned license to kill at will. > Did the dire predictions come true? Despite the fact that Miami and >Dade County have severe problems with the drug trade, the homicide rate >fell in Florida following enactment of this law, as it did in Oregon >following enactment of similar legislation there. There are, in >addition, several documented cases of new permit holders successfully >using their weapons to defend themselves. Information from the Florida >Department of State shows that, from the beginning of the program in >1987 through June 1993, 160,823 permits have been issued, and only 530, >or about 0.33 percent of the applicants, have been denied a permit for >failure to satisfy the criteria, indicating that the law is benefitting >those whom it was intended to benefit -- the law-abiding. Only 16 >permits, less than 1/100th of 1 percent, have been revoked due to the >post-issuance commission of a crime involving a firearm. > The Florida legislation has been used as a model for legislation >adopted by Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Mississippi. There are, in >addition, seven other states (Maine, North and South Dakota, Utah, >Washington, West Virginia, and, with the exception of cities with a >population in excess of 1 million, Pennsylvania) which provide that >concealed-carry permits must be issued to law-abiding citizens who >satisfy various objective criteria. Finally, no permit is required at >all in Vermont. Altogether, then, there are thirteen states in which >law-abiding citizens who wish to carry arms to defend themselves may do >so. While no one appears to have compiled the statistics from all of >these jurisdictions, there is certainly an ample data base for those >seeking the truth about the trustworthiness of law-abiding citizens who >carry firearms. > Other evidence also suggests that armed citizens are very >responsible in using guns to defend themselves. Florida State >University criminologist Gary Kleck, using surveys and other data, has >determined that armed citizens defend their lives or property with >firearms against criminals approximately 1 million times a year. In 98 >percent of these instances, the citizen merely brandishes the weapon or >fires a warning shot. Only in 2 percent of the cases do citizens >actually shoot their assailants. In defending themselves with their >firearms, armed citizens kill 2,000 to 3,000 criminals each year, three >times the number killed by the police. A nationwide study by Kates, >the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent >of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified >as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 >percent, over five times as high. > It is simply not possible to square the numbers above and the >experience of Florida with the notions that honest, law-abiding gun >owners are borderline psychopaths itching for an excuse to shoot >someone, vigilantes eager to seek out and summarily execute the >lawless, or incompetent fools incapable of determining when it is >proper to use lethal force in defense of their lives. Nor upon >reflection should these results seem surprising. Rape, robbery, and >attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or >subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great >book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and >says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being >committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that >she is going to shoot the wrong person. It is the police, because they >are rarely at the scene of the crime when it occurs, who are more >likely to find themselves in circumstances where guilt and innocence >are not so clear-cut, and in which the probability for mistakes is >higher. > > Arms and liberty > > Classical republican philosophy has long recognized the critical >relationship between personal liberty and the possession of arms by a >people ready and willing to use them. Political theorists as >dissimilar as Niccolo Machiavelli, Sir Thomas More, James Harrington, >Algernon Sidney, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all shared the >view that the possession of arms is vital for resisting tyranny, and >that to be disarmed by one's government is tantamount to being enslaved >by it. The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant >that government governs only with the consent of the governed. As >Kates has shown, the Second Amendment is as much a product of this >political philosophy as it is of the American experience in the >Revolutionary War. Yet our conservative elite has abandoned this >aspect of republican theory. Although our conservative pundits >recognize and embrace gun owners as allies in other arenas, their >battle for gun rights is desultory. The problem here is not a statist >utopianism, although goodness knows that liberals are not alone in the >confidence they have in the state's ability to solve society's >problems. Rather, the problem seems to lie in certain cultural traits >shared by our conservative and liberal elites. > One such trait is an abounding faith in the power of the word. The >failure of our conservative elite to defend the Second Amendment stems >in great measure from an overestimation of the power of the rights set >forth in the First Amendment, and a general undervaluation of action. >Implicit in calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment is the >assumption that our First Amendment rights are sufficient to preserve >our liberty. The belief is that liberty can be preserved as long as >men freely speak their minds; that there is no tyranny or abuse that >can survive being exposed in the press; and that the truth need only be >disclosed for the culprits to be shamed. The people will act, and the >truth shall set us, and keep us, free. > History is not kind to this belief, tending rather to support the >view of Hobbes, Machiavelli, and other republican theorists that only >people willing and able to defend themselves can preserve their >liberties. While it may be tempting and comforting to believe that the >existence of mass electronic communication has forever altered the >balance of power between the state and its subjects, the belief has >certainly not been tested by time, and what little history there is in >the age of mass communication is not especially encouraging. The >camera, radio, and press are mere tools and, like guns, can be used for >good or ill. Hitler, after all, was a masterful orator, used radio to >very good effect, and is well known to have pioneered and exploited the >propaganda opportunities afforded by film. And then, of course, there >were the Brownshirts, who knew very well how to quell dissent among >intellectuals. > > Polite society > > In addition to being enamored of the power of words, our >conservative elite shares with liberals the notion that an armed >society is just not civilized or progressive, that massive gun >ownership is a blot on our civilization. This association of personal >disarmament with civilized behavior is one of the great unexamined >beliefs of our time. > Should you read English literature from the sixteenth through >nineteenth centuries, you will discover numerous references to the fact >that a gentleman, especially when out at night or traveling, armed >himself with a sword or a pistol against the chance of encountering a >highwayman or other such predator. This does not appear to have >shocked the ladies accompanying him. True, for the most part there >were no police in those days, but we have already addressed the notion >that the presence of the police absolves people of the responsibility >to look after their safety, and in any event the existence of the >police cannot be said to have reduced crime to negligible levels. > It is by no means obvious why it is "civilized" to permit oneself to >fall easy prey to criminal violence, and to permit criminals to >continue unobstructed in their evil ways. While it may be that a >society in which crime is so rare that no one ever needs to carry a >weapon is "civilized," a society that stigmatizes the carrying of >weapons by the law-abiding -- because it distrusts its citizens more >than it fears rapists, robbers, and murderers -- certainly cannot claim >this distinction. Perhaps the notion that defending oneself with >lethal force is not "civilized" arises from the view that violence is >always wrong, or the view that each human being is of such intrinsic >worth that it is wrong to kill anyone under any circumstances. The >necessary implication of these propositions, however, is that life is >not worth defending. Far from being "civilized," the beliefs that >counterviolence and killing are always wrong are an invitation to the >spread of barbarism. Such beliefs announce loudly and clearly that >those who do not respect the lives and property of others will rule >over those who do. > In truth, one who believes it wrong to arm himself against criminal >violence shows contempt of God's gift of life (or, in modern parlance, >does not properly value himself), does not live up to his >responsibilities to his family and community, and proclaims himself >mentally and morally deficient, because he does not trust himself to >behave responsibly. In truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding >citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized >but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs >and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the >disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat >than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and >act accordingly. > While gun control proponents and other advocates of a kinder, >gentler society incessantly decry our "armed society," in truth we do >not live in an armed society. We live in a society in which violent >criminals and agents of the state habitually carry weapons, and in >which many law-abiding citizens own firearms but do not go about >armed. Department of Justice statistics indicate that 87 percent of >all violent crimes occur outside the home. Essentially, although tens >of millions own firearms, we are an unarmed society. > > Take back the night > > Clearly the police and the courts are not providing a significant >brake on criminal activity. While liberals call for more poverty, >education, and drug treatment programs, conservatives take a more >direct tack. George Will advocates a massive increase in the number of >police and a shift toward "community-based policing." Meanwhile, the >NRA and many conservative leaders call for laws that would require >violent criminals serve at least 85 percent of their sentences and >would place repeat offenders permanently behind bars. > Our society suffers greatly from the beliefs that only official >action is legitimate and that the state is the source of our earthly >salvation. Both liberal and conservative prescriptions for violent >crime suffer from the "not in my job description" school of thought >regarding the responsibilities of the law-abiding citizen, and from an >overestimation of the ability of the state to provide society's moral >moorings. As long as law-abiding citizens assume no personal >responsibility for combatting crime, liberal and conservative programs >will fail to contain it. > Judging by the numerous articles about concealed-carry in gun >magazines, the growing number of products advertised for such purpose, >and the increase in the number of concealed-carry applications in >states with mandatory-issuance laws, more and more people, including >growing numbers of women, are carrying firearms for self-defense. >Since there are still many states in which the issuance of permits is >discretionary and in which law enforcement officials routinely deny >applications, many people have been put to the hard choice between >protecting their lives or respecting the law. Some of these people >have learned the hard way, by being the victim of a crime, or by seeing >a friend or loved one raped, robbed, or murdered, that violent crime >can happen to anyone, anywhere at anytime, and that crime is not about >sex or property but life, liberty, and dignity. > The laws proscribing concealed-carry of firearms by honest, >law-abiding citizens breed nothing but disrespect for the law. As the >Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its >honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense >is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim >that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people. A >federal law along the lines of the Florida statute -- overriding all >contradictory state and local laws and acknowledging that the carrying >of firearms by law-abiding citizens is a privilege and immunity of >citizenship -- is needed to correct the outrageous conduct of state and >local officials operating under discretionary licensing systems. > What we certainly do not need is more gun control. Those who call >for the repeal of the Second Amendment so that we can really begin >controlling firearms betray a serious misunderstanding of the Bill of >Rights. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people, such >that its repeal would legitimately confer upon government the powers >otherwise proscribed. The Bill of Rights is the list of the >fundamental, inalienable rights, endowed in man by his Creator, that >define what it means to be a free and independent people, the rights >which must exist to ensure that government governs only with the >consent of the people. > At one time this was even understood by the Supreme Court. In >United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the first case in which the Court >had an opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment, it stated that >the right confirmed by the Second Amendment "is not a right granted by >the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that >instrument for its existence." The repeal of the Second Amendment >would no more render the outlawing of firearms legitimate than the >repeal of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment would authorize >the government to imprison and kill people at will. A government that >abrogates any of the Bill of Rights, with or without majoritarian >approval, forever acts illegitimately, becomes tyrannical, and loses >the moral right to govern. > This is the uncompromising understanding reflected in the warning >that America's gun owners will not go gently into that good, utopian >night: "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." >While liberals take this statement as evidence of the retrograde, >violent nature of gun owners, we gun owners hope that liberals hold >equally strong sentiments about their printing presses, word >processors, and television cameras. The republic depends upon fervent >devotion to all our fundamental rights. > <snip> ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail