☰ Menu

Like Fish in a Barrel

© Copyright 2004 Raymond K. Paden

Break Glass In Case of Mass Murder

Once again, mass murder has given rise to more calls for "gun control" in order to end such killings.

Every time a monster goes on a killing spree in a school, post office or business, the same cry begins: "we've got to do something about all these guns!" I don't know if they get tired of shoveling the same sort of crap (sorry) but I do get tired of having to say it: guns are not the problem. But there is something that does need to be said, and here it is: When a nut with a gun goes on a killing spree, only one thing will stop him ... someone else with a gun.

Everyone with any common sense knows this, even the anti-gun nuts. But they want that to be the police, charging in for the rescue with their weapons drawn to confront the maniac ... who will then shoot himself. The problem is that (and we all know this too) during the ten minutes or so that it takes the police to arrive, a maniac with a gun can kill a lot of unarmed people. And (as we see in almost every case where this sort of horror takes place) the police are not going to go charging right in to the building. They are going to cordon off the area, establish lines of communications, pass out weapons, come up with a game plan, etc. This is not to criticize the police! It would be foolish for them to rush into an unknown situation. But in the meantime, unarmed people are running around in a panic, trying to escape, and being shot down like fish in a barrel.

Virginia has a concealed carry permit system, but those who have such a permit are not allowed to carry their weapons on Virginia Tech property. In 2006 an attempt was made in the VA legislature to allow licensed carriers to bring their weapons onto state-supported campuses, but it was defeated, in no small part because of virulent opposition from the VT administration. As VT spokesman Larry Hincker said at the time, "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Such irony would be funny, except that it isn't funny. How long must the unarmed innocent continue to die in our government enforced free-fire zones?

Copyright 2004 Raymond K. Paden
rkpaden.com


Harvard says Repeal Second Amendment

© Copyright 2004 Raymond K. Paden

As the Supreme Court prepares to consider the issue of the Second Amendment (shudder) the Harvard Crimson says that the Second Amendment is an anachronism and should be repealed. I give them points for honesty. At least, it seems, they recognize that, as written, the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, and they call for its repeal instead of supporting the tyrannical judges who have tried to interpret it out of existence. Here's the response I emailed to the editorial board:

"But now, when the United States is protected by the most powerful security forces on the globe, the Second Amendment is neither relevant nor useful."

The framers of the constitution feared a standing army more than any foreign invader. History had shown them that the greatest threat to any people's freedom is not invasion, but domestic tyranny, a fact that is just as true and relevant today. But I note that the words "freedom" or "liberty" are not used anywhere in your article. Interestingly, the word "free" appears only once ... in a quote from the Second Amendment. The men who wrote that document were much more concerned about preserving freedom than they were "the implementation of pressing public policy," a sentiment obviously not shared by the Crimson staff. The framers of the constitution had just found it necessary to overthrow their government, and the Second Amendment was written to ensure that the citizens of the country they were about to create would always maintain the means to do the same to this new government should it ever prove necessary. This is what the Second Amendment is all about, and it is as "necessary" today as it was in 1776, especially with "the most powerful security forces on the globe" at our government's disposal.

I won't bother to pen a lengthy answer to your statements about "crime." Your flawed arguments and twisted statistics have already been answered elsewhere much more effectively than I could. Suffice it to say that, although the Second Amendment is not about "crime," a well exercised right to keep and bear arms has repeatedly proven to be the most effective deterrent to crime. Crime, like tyranny, flourishes where the prospective victims are unarmed and defenseless.

Regards,
Raymond K. Paden
Copyright 2004 Raymond K. Paden
rkpaden.com

Harvard says Repeal Second Amendment
written by Raymond K. Paden.
His email address is ray@rkpaden.com.


More Recently the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy published this study

by two more guys. This is what Don B. Kates (LL.B., Yale, 1966) and Gary Mauser (Ph.D., University of California, Irvine, 1970) had to say in 2013. Sorry thie document is in PDF format.

For more interesting reading you might want to checkout "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross and "None Dare Call It Education: What's Happeing to Our Schools & Our Children? by John Stormer

If you are interested here is a link to what the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is really all about









Copyright 2017 Listening Systems Inc. All rights reserved