Gun Controlling Laws
Prof. Henry Collman
History 121
May 25, 2001
Gun Controlling Laws

"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."
Second Amendment, the U.S. Constitution
David Steinberg, former Executive Director, national council for responsible firearms policy, believes (www.2ndlawlib.org) that:
Whatever the merits of such notions about personal and national security (they are, to say the least, highly questionable in this day and age), it is important to note that the only kind of militia the Second Amendment expressly regards as consistent with security is a 'well-regulated' militia. One may rationally and reasonably conclude that this applies both to an organized militia and an unorganized one. Otherwise, an armed citizenry consisting of men and women using guns for presumed high purpose according to their respective dictates of personal whim and political fancy is the stuff from which anarchy could result, and in turn the tyranny against which the private possession of guns is supposed to protect Americans.
Lawmakers like David Steinberg tend to ignore the obvious right of the citizens to protect themselves against violence when an organized militia like police or National Guard is not always available to protect the unarmed people. Rational humans do not use guns without a viable reason. Prohibition of alcohol, in the early part of the twentieth century led to boot legging and smuggling, a similar ban on guns will give rise to an increase in illegal possession of firearms.
An article in Cody express (www.CodyExpress.com) says:
Experience has shown that stringent laws against illegal drug use and stiff penalties for those caught violating those laws have not eliminated illicit drugs from our society or the crime associated with the drug culture. Common sense should tell us that taking the same approach to firearms would only bring similar results. Common sense should tell us that by restricting or eliminating guns from law-abiding citizens, we are not denying criminals; we are putting good citizens in jeopardy.
In a series of letters between Albert Isham and Ari Armstrong, Armstrong explains (www.co-freedom.com) why gun control is not a practical option:
There are three main reasons to be skeptical that disarmament laws will work. First, if a gun is not available, the criminal can resort to other weapons, such as knives, bats, chains, etc. The goal should not be to reduce the number of murders with a gun, but to reduce the total number of murders over-all. Second, criminals tend not to obey the law, anyway. The more guns are restricted, the more criminals will resort to theft, the black-market, and garage production to get guns. Just as drug prohibition created an incredibly violent black-market (which is responsible for many of the murders you cite), gun prohibition would create a similar violent black market, thus increasing one category of murders and general crime. Third, criminals are more likely to victimize unarmed citizens. Fewer civil arms tend to be associated with more violent crimes against persons. A rapist doesn't want to face a woman with a gun. A burglar doesn't want to break into a home with armed occupants. Thus, even if fewer criminals have guns, at least as many criminals will use other weapons to commit crime.
He continues to ask if the civil arms ensure safety? Absolutely. As John Lott found in More Guns, Less Crime, liberal concealed carry laws in the United States resulted in a dramatic decrease in violent crimes. Alternately, Australia's gun ban led to a dramatic increase in violent crimes. (David Kopel's The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy examine gun laws in other nations.) Criminals prefer disarmed victims, certainly. He further (www.co-freedom.com) adds:
Also, let us not forget that, in the 20th Century, over 169 MILLION people were murdered by their own governments. How many of those people do you think were armed? (My answer: not enough.) It can't happen here? That's what they thought in Germany, Russia, etc. It can't happen here -- so long as the population remains well armed.
Thus the right to bear arms is as important as freedom of speech, gun control infringes on a citizen's basic right as defined in the constitution.
Works Cited
Annie, Jan 12 2000. A Nation of Victims. The Consequences of Gun Control. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on May 9, 2001
www.CodyExpress.com
Armstrong Ari. Colorado Freedom. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on May 9, 2001
www.co-freedom.com
Steinberg. David J. Does the Second Amendment Mean What it Say. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on May 2, 2001
www.2ndlawlib.org