Saturday, October 10, 2009

Gun Control

My network was down all day yesterday and didn't come back up until this morning, so I am really backed up with work and the Blog. I will try to catch up over the next few days. Keep coming back. I promise to catch up.

Note today's (Saturday) thought. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Jefferson and will add that this has never been more pertinent in America than right now. Even though HR-45 is a dead issue, the Chicago handgun ban case before the SCOTUS could be the beginning of another slide down the slippery slope of enormous restriction against the legal ownership of firearms.

Referring to the Chicago case before him, Judge Frank Easterbrook said that "the Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule." "Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon."

I don’t agree with Judge Easterbrook. Our country is not governed by a Federalist Democracy, we are governed by a Constitutional Republic. Judge Easterbrook’s is the type of attitude which will strip our rights. Not only the right to carry a firearm, but many other rights delineated in the Constitution.

The further we allow progressives to move us away from the core values guaranteed under the constitution, the weaker we become as a nation. Gun control is only one of the headline issues.

Many have stated and the basis for the Chicago ban is an increasing incidence of murder with handguns in the inner city. This is true, but it is not indicative of improper control, there are more than enough laws and regulations on the use of firearms. I will opine that this is much more indicative of the criminality of the inner city residents, who have since the time President Johnson’s “Great Society” program was initiated, been living in single female head of households and have lost their moral center. Not having a strong father figure, or any father figure for that matter, is the real problem. If there is no one to teach that violence is not the answer, if there is no one to teach the work ethic, then violence becomes a more accepted action.

Let’s take a look at Americas large cities which have the most stringent gun control laws -- DC, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia are in the top ten in America.. Now consider the Cities which have the highest rates of single female head of households -- DC, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia, again -- in the top ten.. Finally, consider the cities with the highest rates of firearm violence --DC, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia -- low and behold, top ten again.

Are you beginning to get the picture? Do you see the correlation? Guns aren’t the problem, moral upbringing and character is the problem. Our professional politicians shouldn't react to violence so much as the root cause of the violence. Our national policy should be to turn forty years of slipping down the moral slope around and begin the climb back to rebuilding two party households with a strong father figure in the inner cities.


  1. Huh, interesting take the judge has there. However, as you pointed out, we are a Republic, not a federalist anything. The Federalist is a political ideology, like being a Democrat or Republican.

    As to the judges thoughts on gun rights of the state, no - it is not part of the 10th Amendment, but should be, as the 1st Amendment is, part of the 14th and the 9th Amendments.

    Also, we do have a protected right to have true assault weapons(this is where I loose a lot of folks). For the 1792 Militia Act, and even the 1903 Militia(Dick's) Act grant the right of the militia to have similar weapons as the military.

    It was not until the 1939 Miller v US, that the silly idea of "sporting" or "common" purpose was introduced, thanks to the NRA President Karl T. Frederick, who testified before congress in 1934, that we didn't need machine guns and to carry pistols.

    The right to OWN and BEAR firearms belong to every citizens, in every state, in ever city and it shall not be infringed. For it is a civil right, which hopefully the US Supreme Court will confirm and make law once and for all.

    Great post by the way.

  2. Scalawag,
    Thanks for the incite and the positives. I wasn't aware of the Miller case, but have always maintained that the type of firearm is not the issue, the right to own is the issue. I will look up Miller and add my take in the near future. Thanks again.

  3. Thanks for stopping by and posting. Looks like a great blog you have.

  4. Good Points - and thanks for the pointer.

    (Yea, I'm slow - you left a link to this on my blog over a year ago).