Gun Control   

Thomas Jefferson:  "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." 

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. "

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

James Madison:  "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Alexander Hamilton:   "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."

Richard Henry Lee:  "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Tench Coxe:  "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

George Mason:  "Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers."

Noah Webster:   "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

John Adams:  "Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."

Samuel Adams:  "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."  

Benjamin Franklin:  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

David Houle:  Today, 100 million American gun owners, killed no one. 

Gun control. I'm against it. We don't need it. Guns are inanimate. Emotionless. Immobile. They have no ability, means or desire to commit crime or violence. One of the fundamental principals of a free society is you are not punished for the acts of others.  You are not deprived of your rights and freedom because of the criminal activity of others. (Aside from aiding and abetting criminal acts) Instead of trying to control the guns that are properly employed by the vast majority of the millions of decent and law abiding gun owning citizens, why don't we control the people who abuse the rights of gun ownership? I rather detest employing the platitudinous old cliché, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", but it's true.

I have owned guns for most of my life. Continuously since the time my father gave me a Harrington-Richardson .22 Caliber Long Rifle Single Shot rifle (with peep-sight) for my 12th birthday.  I have owned a number of other rifles, shotguns and handguns since then. I currently own four handguns, a Ruger Security Six .357 Magnum Revolver, two Beretta Model 96 .40 Caliber Auto Loading Pistols, one black matte finish, and one special edition stainless steel "United We Stand" and a personal weapon, a Smith & Wesson Model 360SC AirLite .357 Magnum Revolver.

No, I don't have a concealed weapons permit. I don't need one. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America clearly states. . . "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

What part of ". . . . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" don't our politicians understand?

Listen carefully. The Second Amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, it PROTECTS OUR RIGHT to keep and bear arms.  It's important you understand the difference.

My guns have never killed anyone. My guns have never robbed a bank or a convenience store. In fact, my guns have never even pointed themselves at another human being.

Now, I readily admit to selective indignation regarding the abuse of our constitutional rights. For example, I fully support the laws banning felons the right to own or bear arms. Those laws may be, and probably are, unconstitutional, nevertheless, I support them.

All of the new proposed legislation for licenses, ammunition sales, trigger locks, waiting periods and what else is nothing more than smokescreen and is designed to make our inept lawmakers "Feel Good". The government with their "Feel Good" legislation will not have any more success in keeping guns away from the criminals than they did with alcohol during prohibition, or drugs during the drug war.

I really don't believe that I am personally superior to, or better than, any of the other millions and millions of gun owning, law abiding citizens living in this country. With the exception, of course, of the very small percentage of our citizens who use firearms (and other lethal weapons) to advance their chosen illicit careers. I am better than them. I deserve to live my life in peace and harmony, free from any threat to my life, limb or property. They don't.

Instead of "Feel Good" laws, why do our politicians refuse to pass "Real Laws", with "Real Penalties"? I would encourage and support all laws that punish the "Arms Abusers" and not the "Arms Owners". For example, instead of a foolish approach such as five day waiting periods, child safety gunlocks, permits and licensing, let's have real laws that provide for LIFE IMPRISONMENT to anyone who uses any weapon in the commission of any crime. Let's have laws that provide for the DEATH PENALTY to anyone who discharges a weapon in the commission of any crime, regardless of the results of that discharge. The DEATH PENALTY should apply to anyone who merely points a weapon at a law enforcement officer. It's time we stop pampering, coddling and playing with the criminals and protect the citizens and law abiding gun owners of this nation.

Proof that our politicians are not seriously interested in preventing crime or gun deaths can be found in dozens of areas but here are three that are obvious and simple to understand.

1. My own state of Arizona, after a rash of convenience store robberies and murdering of store clerks in the early 1970's, passed a law directing a mandatory minimum 5 year prison term for any person using a gun in the commission of a crime. I'm not exactly certain about the specifics of that law, but at the time it was referred to as the "Circle-K" law. The Arizona Judiciary resented the Arizona Legislature dictating court penalties to the honorable, esteemed and omnipotent judges and refused to apply this law.  In the nearly 30 years this law has been on the books, and to this date, in spite of thousands of armed robberies, murders and other gun wielding crimes committed in Arizona, not one, NOT ONE person has ever been convicted or punished under that law. Are our politicians or our judges serious about eliminating crime? Or do they just want to "Feel Good"?

2. The "Sarah Brady Bill" passed in November of 1993 has been heralded by liberals as the total answer to our horrendous crime problem. Clinton and Algore both have stated the Brady Bill has prevented "hundreds of thousands of criminals" from obtaining guns. POPPYCOCK! It was already against the law for felons to possess or purchase guns prior to the passing of this bill. Out of these "hundreds of thousands", only eight criminals have been prosecuted under this law. Two convictions. Are our politicians and our judges serious about eliminating crime? Or do they just want to "Feel Good"? Why haven't they been prosecuted? Why? Because the government is not serious about crime. They want to take the easy way out and punish everyone instead of demanding personal responsibility from the guilty. By banning guns, the government is the great loving and benevolent protector. By punishing the criminals, they become the evil prosecutor. And that doesn't "Feel Good".

3. The federal government, through legislation proposed by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) wants to eliminate and outlaw the low priced hand guns commonly known as "Saturday Night Specials." This mindless attempt is beyond common intellect or even common sense.  The lawmakers, and the people who support those laws deserve the everlasting contempt of all law abiding citizens. Criminals typically obtain their weapons through theft and really don't care about the cost. Their weapons of choice are not the "Saturday Night Specials" which are usually 4, 5 or 6 shot revolvers, but the larger caliber semi-automatic weapons which hold 10 to 15 rounds and are much more reliable than the cheaply manufactured guns.  Not everyone can afford to spend $600 on a weapon such as a Beretta 96 so this illogical drive to eliminate cheap handguns will in effect disarm the poor who usually live in low income, high crime neighborhoods, and are the very people who need these weapons the most. Removing the low-cost weapons will not affect the criminals but will inhibit the less affluent members of our society from having the means or ability to defend themselves against the very crimes politicians believe those very guns commit. These laws are terribly discriminatory against people with limited means.

The main page of my "Personal Page" contains two lines intended to use humor to relate what we all know are appalling truisms.  These lines read:

"Blaming guns for crime is like blaming the spoon because Rosie O'Donnell is fat."

"The next time Democrats talk to you about gun control, 
telephone for the police and a pizza and see who gets there first."

The spoon didn't make Rosie fat. We all know that. And unfortunately, the police cannot always be near our elbow to protect our lives, wives or husbands, our children or our property.

We, as good and responsible citizens, have a legal and moral obligation to take whatever precautions and measures we, in our sole discretion, deem appropriate to insure our peace, our tranquility and our security. The most fundamental right, of all rights, is the right to life. - - - This right is given to man by God and CANNOT be legislated away by government. - - - By denying the honest citizen the right to defend his life the government is, in effect, aiding and abetting the very criminals they refuse to prosecute. Man has no moral or legal obligation to submit himself to laws that contradict the rights granted by God.

Without a doubt, some people do bad things with guns. But, guns also protect people when law enforcement officers aren't able to be there. The concept of justice has been lost in our society. Rape and murder are two of the most heinous crimes that one human being can perpetrate against another. The question should not be: "How do we keep guns out of the hands of these criminals," but rather "What are these criminals doing out of prison in the first place?"

That's the way I see it.