The Constitution, which sets forth the principle of rule of law, defines what is unconstitutional, and guarantees freedom of speech and other liberties of a Constitutional republic, and also describes the impeachment power. (How many know of the Jewish roots of this document?) Hypocrisy threatens Constitutional government. Could Israel use a constitution like this? More to the point: would a Convention of States save it, or destroy it? (Example: civil asset forfeiture violates the Constitution.) Quick fixes like Regulation Freedom Amendments weaken it. Furthermore: the Constitution provides for removing, and punishing, a judge who commits treason in his rulings. Furthermore, opponents who engage in lawfare against an elected President risk breaking the Constitution. The Constitution, which sets forth the principle of rule of law, defines what is unconstitutional, and guarantees freedom of speech and other liberties of a Constitutional republic, and also describes the impeachment power. (How many know of the Jewish roots of this document?) Hypocrisy threatens Constitutional government. Could Israel use a constitution like this? More to the point: would a Convention of States save it, or destroy it? (Example: civil asset forfeiture violates the Constitution.) Quick fixes like Regulation Freedom Amendments weaken it. Furthermore: the Constitution provides for removing, and punishing, a judge who commits treason in his rulings. Furthermore, opponents who engage in lawfare against an elected President risk breaking the Constitution.

Gun control: good grief, Charlie Brown!

Bonnie Erbe, a TV host and columnist for Scripps Howard News Service recently published an article entitled “NRA should take hit for gun deaths in schools.” Ms. Erbe makes several outlandish claims in her argument demonizing the National Rifle Association. In her article she cites the recent school shooting in Oakland, California and states: “Between 1992 and 2001, shooting was the leading cause of violent deaths in schools.” She ends by saying: “The next time you see a news report about a mass killing with lots of innocent people dead, think NRA – no matter what the NRA tells you.”

Perhaps in a topsy-turvy Alice in Wonderland-type world, Ms. Erbe’s arguments would make sense. One glaring piece of information she omitted is that the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act restricts a person from carrying a firearm 1000 feet from the property line of a school. If gun restriction laws were effective we wouldn’t see crimes with firearms within school zones. The law simply does not allow them on schools grounds or anywhere near a school. So much for gun control laws. Conversely, all but 3 of our national parks and wildlife refuges legally allow firearms within their zones. Therefore, according to Ms. Erbe’s logic, we should expect to see more killings in national parks than schools.

Do only outlaws need guns?

When guns are outlawed, only an outlaw will have a gun.
A collection of guns, including the sort of assault firearm that Bonnie Erbe complains of. Photo: user kosheahan (Flickr), CC BY 2.0 License

Within the article, Ms., Erbe draws the unfounded and outrageous conclusion that only terrorists and mass murders need assault weapons. She goes on to build upon her own assumption and says:

So one of the most powerful lobbying groups in America lobbies for laws that assist terrorists and, as we saw this week in California, mentally unstable people, to acquire weapons.

Ms. Erbe is wrong again. Mentally unstable people may not buy firearms according to the Brady Act (see #4 below). The Brady Act excludes you from purchasing a firearm if you:

  1. Have been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  2. Are a fugitive from justice;
  3. Are an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
  4. Have been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
  5. Are an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
  6. Have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  7. Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
  8. Are subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
  9. Have been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
  10. Have a record of being a felon.

Therefore, I must ask Ms. Erbe how many people arrested with firearms have previously been convicted of a crime, are fugitives, are unlawful users or addicted to controlled substances, have been judged mentally defective or committed to a mental institution, are illegal aliens, etc., etc., etc.? I would guess that a great majority of those unlawfully using firearms fall into one of the categories listed above. If so, this would negate Ms. Erbe’s argument where she refuses to believe that criminals don’t obey firearms laws.

Furthermore, the Florida Division of Licensing, Monthly Statistical Report reported that the state of Florida issued 1.7 million carry permits but only had to revoke 167 due to gun crimes by permit-holders.According to Ms. Erbe’s logic, 1.7 million carry permits should flood the state with firearms and result in a huge increase in crime. But after Florida enacted a “shall issue” law in 1987, its murder rate decreased 23 percent at a time when the national rate rose nine percent. In a state that was decimated by crime, allowing law-abiding citizens to bear arms has not resulted in a rise in crime but in a reduction of crime. In Florida the law-abiding citizens have not turned into gun-totting felons but now have the opportunity to defend themselves and their property.

Direct evidence: gun laws do not work

Former Florida Licensing Division Director John Russi also doesn’t agree with Ms. Erbe. He stated,

Florida’s concealed weapon law has been very successful. All major law enforcement groups supported the original legislation….[S]ome of the opponents of concealed weapon legislation in 1987 now admit the program has not created the problems many predicted.

Perhaps Ms. Erbe thinks Director Russi supports terrorists as well.

Is there no limit to how the anti-gun protesters are willing to twist the facts to support their point of view? The left’s logic regarding gun control makes as much sense as their support for free healthcare that will bankrupt this nation and many of its citizens in the process. Alice’s Wonderland may be a nice place to observe through a looking glass, but living in it would only make sense to those like Ms. Erbe who have already lost touch with reality.

Ms. Erbe stated that we need a reality check, she should have said she needs a reality check. It’s fortunate for us that our Founders had a firm grasp on reality and consequently the good sense to include the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment isn’t just about guns, it’s also about the right of self-defense.

God bless America, and thank God for the Second Amendment.

[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378, 1936488299″ /]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Website | + posts

RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.

citizenship, constitutional law, second amendment

Comments (43)

  • Gun control Laws do not work? What about the Brady Act, which was cited in this very article? That’s a law that controls guns. And if I remember correctly the NRA was in opposition to that Act when it was passed by President Clinton. In fact, the NRA has historically been opposed to ANY law that restricts guns in any way, shape, or form, even when those are laws designed to keep guns away from criminals. I imagine that this is what Ms. Erbe is referring to.

    Dont get me wrong, I love guns. And I think that every law-abiding citizen has a right to own a firearm so long as its reasonable. But part of living in a society is that we entrust our protections to designated authorities. We cant live in a civilized manner if we are all vigilantes. This has been recognized by civilized people for thousands of years.

    • When we say work we mean “as advertised.” Do those laws stop crime? No. To the contrary, they encourage crime, by disarming the targets of crime. They also disarm the populace in the face of a potentially tyrannical government.

      The Second Amendment is the reset button on society.

      • “The Second Amendment is the reset button on society.”

        Please explain exactly what you mean by that comment. It seems to be trying to excuse domestic terrorism.

        • It means that when the government becomes destructive of the ends of securing the rights to life, liberty and property, the people can exercise their right to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government more likely to secure their freedom as well as their safety and happiness. See the Declaration of Independence.

          The American War for Independence began when your redcoat ancestors tried to confiscate my ancestors’ weapons.

          • My ancestors may or may not have participated in the war – I’ll need to check with the pair of relatives who are trying to trace my family’s ancestry, but that’s neither here nor there.

            Are you claiming that Obama is doing… something… that equates to the actions taken against the colonies by the King?

            If so, what?

            Please can you stop beating around the bush, Terry. You keep throwing around words like “treason”, “crime” etc but almost never say what you mean.

            Since we’re talking about the second amendment, please list for me every statute passed during Obama’s presidency that restricts gun control.

            If you’re having trouble making a list there’s one good reason: there is no such statute.

          • Yes. The history of the man now holding office as President of the United States is a history of repeated abuses and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over the States of the United States, and of the people. To prove this, let me submit facts before a candid world.

            He has lent his support to a proposed United Nations Convention on Small Arms, which has in direct object the confiscation of all weapons from all citizens and subjects of all member States, free or slave.

            He has lent his support to United Nations Agenda Twenty-one, which has in direct object the destruction of independent rural communities, the compulsion of all people to dwell in cities having the kind of tight control familiar only on university campuses, and the return of vast tracts of formerly rural lands to the wild.

            He has recently signed an Executive Order having in direct object the virtual establishment of martial law over these States.

            He has conducted, through subordinates, an operation on the United States-Mexican border, having in direct object the “throw-down” of small arms, and having in ulterior object the absolute prohibition against the ownership of small arms by the people.

            He has poured contempt upon our independent judiciary, by declaring “unprecedented an extraordinary” the likely overturn of his signature attempt at pretended legislation:

            • For establishing a new armed uniformed service, having a four-year appropriation, ostensibly for emergency first response in disaster areas,
            • For laying a Capitation Tax on the people without apportionment among the several States,
            • For laying and collecting differential taxes on the exports of certain of the several States,
            • For subjecting our private medical records to unreasonable and unwarranted search and seizure,
            • For granting preferential treatment to members of favored religious sects or divisions, and
            • For establishing a government monopoly over the establishment of hospitals and clinics.

            He has laid in a supply of hollow-point ammunition (450 million rounds), the use of which in mere target practice would never be contemplated.

            In every stage of these plans, we have petitioned our courts in appropriate terms. His response has been to pour contempt and even to threaten. A “president” whose actions more befit a tyrant is unfit to lead a free people.

            Nor have we been wanting in attention to our unionized public employees, university professors, and various and sundry dilletantes who continue to support this man. We have reminded them of their own words in support of this man, as a “healer of divisions.” They, too, in many cases, have been deaf to our pleas. We therefore…but you may interpret that however you like.

          • And how do you interpret the Executive Order on National Resources Preparedness? Or the UN Small Arms Convention? Or Operation Fast and Furious?

          • Terry, I grow tired of your gnomic replies.

            You are no less able to purchase weaponry now than you were before Obama took office. That is a fact, and it’s disingenuous to claim otherwise.

            If there’s really no example you can give, I think you should drop this.

          • You mean that, from your side of the pond, you see a United States no closer to becoming the guilded cage that the United Kingdom has now become, than when Barack Hussein Obama pledged to make that real.

          • “He has laid in a supply of hollow-point ammunition (450 million rounds), the use of which in mere target practice would never be contemplated.”

            Whyever not? This may come as a surprise to you, Terry, but you have to do weapons training with the same ammunition you’ll use operationally. Otherwise your sights will be zeroed incorrectly.

            Anyway, we’ve been through this all before: 450 million rounds is a trivial amount.

          • “hollow-point ammunition (450 million rounds), the use of which in mere target practice would never be contemplated.”

            Actually I’m ging to come back to this because I’m flabbergasted that, for all your advocacy of irresponsible gun pownership, you know so little about guns.

            Hollowpoint ammunition is the variant of choice for target shooting. Most of my shooting has been done with military ball ammo because that’s what I’ve carried in the field and therefore is what I needed to practice with, but most competition shooters use hollowpoint because it’s more accurate and consistent and cuts neater holes in the target. US military snipers use hollowpoint rifle ammunition because it’s more accurate, even though it’s of very dubious legality for military use. And for a federal employee who’s going to be carrying a weapon loaded with hollowpoint ammo, I can’t think of any reason at all why he wouldn’t use it for target practice: it’s what his weapon needs to be zeroed for AND it’s better for target shooting anyway.

          • “Little you know.”

            Why don’t you just answer his question? What laws has Obama passed that make it harder for Americans to buy guns?

          • Well, happily, he doesn’t have a full Congress who can apply the rubber stamp to his disarming ideas. And when he and his AG “threw down” a bunch of small arms across the Mexican border, and got a US border agent killed in the process, they got caught. Even the cover story, that that was a sting operation gone tragically wrong, has embarrassed them in a way that makes their disarmament agenda moribund.

            But I go by motive, not by actual accomplishment, when I choose to campaign for or against someone.

  • It’s not “twisting the facts” to say that your country has vastly more gun deaths than countries that have had the good sense to outlaw guns.

    I live in London, England, and it’s still front page news when we have a shooting. Our gun laws mean that if anyone is found to be in possession of a gun in public, they are assumed to be a criminal. Your idiotic laws seem to assume the reverse. It’s time for you gun nuts to wake up. Guns cause death. That is their function. The more guns you have, the more death there is.

    The way in which you misinterpret your second amendment – are you part of an organised militia? – shows the extent to which you have no idea what the framers intended.

    • Sure, you don’t have shootings. Instead you have knifings, drownings in bathtubs, stranglings, et cetera.

      • You have those things too.

        That’s fair enough as far as it goes, but the per capita murder rate is still far higher in your country than mine, and that’s down to the prevalence of guns.

        I don’t know why this is so hard to understand.

        The only purpose of a gun is to propel one or more pieces of metal into or through another human being. How can you possibly claim that guns reduce crime when you have such an appalling set of crime figures?

        • Here is how I can say that: we have never tried to allow everyone, including law-abiding residents, to carry weapons. If we did, then a lot of the targets of would-be serial murderers would abort the careers of said murderers the instant they struck.

          Now frankly, I stand on the prerogative that Ayn Rand gave to all who value their liberty, a concept that I can never expect you, a British subject, to understand. And that is: I could say the above, and stand on it as my reason to vote against gun control. But I won’t. It is not your particular statistics I challenge, but your moral premise. Were it true that systematic disarmament of the entire populace could stop crime completely, and I were asked to surrender anything that could remotely resemble a weapon, I would refuse. I would refuse for the same reason that the Constitution of the United States specifically says that the people, which are a collection and not a collective, have the absolute right to keep and bear arms.

          • Ah now you’ve overstated my position. Although personally I don’t understand why anybody would ever want to own a gun, I wouldn’t ever seek to have a blanket rule that banned anyone from doing so. All I want is sensible gun control.

            By selling someone a gun, you’re putting them in control of a lethal weapon. Is it really so unreasonable to ask that there’s a process in place to make sure they’re capable of using it responsibly? If you want to drive a car, you’re required to undergo training and assessment and I’ve never heard anyone argue against that (although I have a sneaking suspicion you’re about to prove me wrong…) Does anybody ever really, really need to walk into a store and walk out straight away with a new weapon? Does any private citizen really need a semi-automatic gun of any kind? Does a private citizen ever need to build up a personal arsenal of dozens of guns with thousands of rounds of ammunition?

            I believe the answer to each of those three questions is “no”.

          • The reason that you “personally…don’t understand why anybody would ever want to own a gun” is that you are not free. You are a subject. I am a citizen, in the truest sense of the word. You may think that you are free. But the government still limits you severely, in ways that you clearly do not perceive, just as a horse on a very large ranch might think he’s free, but that fence sets him apart from the wild mustang.

            And that’s what America has been until now: a country of mustangs.

            By selling someone a gun, you are acknowledging his sovereignty over his life, and according him the proper respect. Again, I don’t expect you ever to understand that. And any busybody who busies himself with “mak[ing] sure they’re capable of using [a gun] responsibly” is also quite capable of deciding, quite suddenly, that no one is so capable, save only an LEO.

            The answers to the questions you throw at me are all the same. “Yes.” If any of those answers is “no,” the people are not free. Full stop. End of memo.

          • Your concept of freedom is not one with which I would ever want to be associated. Neither would JS Mill, author of the great work On Liberty.

            Just as an aside, comparing yourself to a breed of animal that must be “broken” before it’s useful; that was brought to the country by the Spanish; and was sold for pet food until the government intervened to stop the practice… is an interesting analogy.

          • “By selling someone a gun, you are acknowledging his sovereignty over his life”

            By selling someone a gun you are putting him in control of a piece of lethal machinery. There is a basic responsibility to everyone who will come within range of that gun to ensure that he (or she) is fit and competent to own and use it safely.

          • And that responsibility, and accountability, goes to him who owns the gun. That’s what criminal courts are for, as I’m sure you can figure out.

            But then again, I don’t expect any European to understand freedom.

          • “That’s what criminal courts are for”

            I’m sure it’s a great comfort for fatal shooting victims that the shooter may stand trial for it.

            “I don’t expect any European to understand freedom.”

            What freedom do you think I’m lacking here, Terry?

          • If we punished everyone because he was going to do something, we’d throw half the world into prison. Is that what you want?

            And I’m sure that your way will be a great comfort when another Nazi-like state rises from the ashes of the first.

          • “If we punished everyone because he was going to do something, we’d throw half the world into prison. Is that what you want?”

            Who’s talking about punishing anyone? I’m certainly not. I’m just saying that before people are trusted with lethal weapons they should have to demonstrate that they’re fit and competent to be so entrusted.

            Like I said before, I’m looking at getting an old service rifle. If I moved in next to you and owned such a weapon what would you prefer – that I was a chronic alcoholic who didn’t know how to work the change lever or unload safely, or that I was certified as a trustworthy and skilled operator of the rifle? The fact that a court would deal with me afterwards isn’t going to help you much if I drink a bottle of vodka some night then accidentally fire a whole magazine through your bedroom wall, is it?

          • Yes, you are. You are saying that no one, except someone whom the government authorizes, shall own or carry a firearm. That’s one step removed from “no person, save an LEO or a soldier, sailor, pilot, airman, etc., shall own or carry a firearm.” And that is what you really want, is it not? I know all about incrementalism.

            “Entrust”? How dare you? That’s why you don’t understand freedom. You trust the government far too much. So much that you don’t trust your fellow subjects (and that’s what you and your neighbors in your newly-adopted country are, subjects, for that is how they think and behave) to decide for themselves how to defend themselves, raise and teach their children, et cetera.

            Now I’ll tell you what. If you had the old service rifle, I’d get one, too. We each would know what the other had. If I had a problem with you, I’d call you and say, “Let’s talk.” And you would know perfectly well that if you tried anything funny with that rifle—well, you wouldn’t get very far. We both would know that.

            That is why the following statement is proverbial: “An armed society is a polite society.”

            The way it works now, is that if you had murderous intent, you’d get that old service rifle on the black market. I would not have that right. And I would have to choose between dying at your hands, and arming myself comparably, fighting a battle with you, and then going to criminal court on the charge of unlawfully obtaining, possessing, and discharging a firearm, and me not being an LEO or an active-duty soldier.

          • “If you had the old service rifle, I’d get one, too.”

            Big Talk, Terry, but that wouldn’t protect you from incompetence leading to negligent discharges, drunkenness or mental breakdowns on my part: the first you’d know would be the impact, shortly followed by the bang. What’s wrong with just requiring gun owners to prove their competence? It’s not hard: I just joined a gun club and used their weapons for a year. When I applied for a permit the permit office checked with the club if I was competent, checked with the police if I was a criminal then issued it.

          • “That’s one step removed from “no person, save an LEO or a soldier, sailor, pilot, airman, etc., shall own or carry a firearm.” And that is what you really want, is it not?”

            Not at all. I’m not in any of those categories, I own a weapon and I’m looking for another one. I support civilian gun ownership, just like I support civilian car ownership. I simply think that guns are too dangerous to be given to the incompetent or untrustworthy.

  • rpeh:

    What you’re saying (without coming out and saying it) is that guns kill people.

    Guns don’t kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

    A gun is no more or less a tool to murder, rob, maim, or otherwise control somebody than is a knife, rope, or even your bare hands.

    I don’t how law works over in the UK, but in many States and jurisdictions here, if you read 1st Daimyo (or however it’s spelled >.<) indicating you've reached 1st degree black belt in a martial art, you're required to register YOUR HANDS AND FEET as deadly weapons. Same if you're a professional boxer.

    To say that guns kill people is exactly to say that pencils misspell words and that twinkies made me fat. It's fallacious logic in any other form of discussion.

    It's simply that guns are convenient because of their so-called "ready accessibility".

    Here's the kicker, though: gun control laws NOWHERE ON EARTH work. Why? Because the intent of the laws is to explicitly prevent criminals from acquiring them. Guess what? They'll have their guns, no matter what law or laws you put into place. Nothing you can do will slow them down.

    What control DOES do is disable the law-abiding populace from a perfectly legitimate sport and means to defend themselves.

    What's next, you'll seek to outlaw knives, rope, and contact sports because they also kill people?

    How far are you willing to take your logic?


    As a thought: Terry, if I'm an honest, law-abiding citizen (which means I generally don't do anything that affects at least one other person), what business or matter is it of anyone or a government whether I have a 12 gauge and a .22, or an arsenal full of automatic assault rifles and .50 calibers?

    I'm not breaking the law, and I'm not affecting at least one other person… why does it matter? Just some food for thought. :-)

    • Keith:

      I don’t think the government has any business knowing that, except strictly in the context of “organizing, training, and disciplining the militia.” See US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16. And even then, that’s a matter for the State Adjutant General. Notice, I mean properly speaking.

    • The “Guns don’t kill people…” slogan is irrelevant since I wasn’t talking about banning guns. Since we agree that it’s people that kill people, what problem can you possibly have with someone being required to wait a little while before gaining access to a lethal mechanism?

      • Oh, yes, you were. The principle of incrementalism is closely akin to the Muslim principle of taquiyyah: tell a strategic lie about your intentions. And so any time I hear anyone say, “I don’t want to ban small arms from the citizenry; all I want is some reasonable restrictions, surely you can live with those?” I look ahead to when those same people are snapping, “Why should anyone have to wonder whether the other person is carrying?”, then, later, yell, “Put down those guns, you nutters! Ye gods, who do you think you are?” and finally scream something not safe for work.

        • So… not only am I talking about banning guns when I’m not, but I’m now also a Muslim?

          At this point, I’m giving up. Your argument has run off the rails.

          • I didn’t say that you were a Muslim, but only that you act like one in one specific respect: strategically dissembling to get what you ultimately want, when you know that the up-front truth will never get it for you.

  • I definitely agree with Terry on this one. I have read that Ireland has higher more crime per a person than the US. How do you explain that one our british friend?? We have a right to have a gun in the US and i’ll darned if ANYONE takes that away from me. Everyone is quick to blame Zimmerman for killing that black man and likes to blame gun laws. But do people stop to think if what would have happened if the other man also had a gun? Answer is probably nothing. People won’t commit gun violence it they know they will get it back at them. This would have been true to school shootings around the country, shootings in public place and even 911. but liberals don’t like to acknowledge that a few guns are dangerous (again look at ireland) while guns in everyones (or a lot of people) hands is actually much safer. These are the facts.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© All Rights Reserved. Conservative News and Views.

Back to Top