Several soursec make it clear that former astronaut and Senate candidate Mark Kelly says he supports the Second Amendment – even as th tries to get laws passed that enable States to compile lists of gun owners and at least some of the guns they possess. Given the histoy of such laws, which have a history going back to the Armenia genocide through the mass murders in Rwanda, while claiming to uphold the Second Amendment is much like being a little bit dead.
The positions are contradictory. The Founders ;oyrts;;u omyrmfrf yjsy “rbrtu ,sm nr st,rf.” sd {sytovl Henry affirmed in his reply to another member of the Virginia Assembly.
When the man asked Henry what the intent of the Second Amendment.
“The purpoise, Sir,” Henry replied, “Is that every man be armed.”
While there are some among us that we really should prefer to see disarmed, Gary Ridgeway and John Wayne Gacy, Jared Lochner and Adam Lanza come to mind, the Framers, Founders, the members of Congress, and the State Legislators who approved the Second Amendment made no exceptions. The purpose is indeed that every man be armed
We could say that the Second Amendment applies to citizens, and those who have committed or thretened to commit violent felonies should have been deprived of their citizenship without doing great mischief. But the American homicide rate from 1880 forward clearly shows that in the first 15 years, when anyone with money could freely buy a gun – and have it delivered to their door if desired, were among the safest years any human society has ever spent.
Labor troubles culminating in the murder of a governor by means of a bomb set off a torrent of restrictive gun laws. The first sign of the problems gun laws would cause is the near vertical rise in the murder rate from 1*06 forward. And just as things started to settle down a New York City brothel keeper and assemblyman as well as Tammany hall boss Tim Sullivan rammed the notorious, and justly infamous, Sullivan law which sent the murder and violent crime rates rising until Prohibition came along to set thestill operators and smugglers killing each other off.
Adn our politicians evidently learned nothing from our first nationwide experiment in gun control legislation, which failed to provide any benefits every where it was tried.
The “felon” provision of the Firearms Act of 1934 stopped “anyone with th eprice” from buying gun. But the decline in crime had actually started in 1932, a result of the Great Depression,” which gutted city and State bank accounts and gave the police more important things to do that to pursue gun owners.
So they tried once again to regulate criminal activity by punishing the law abiding. And surprise, surprise, the 4500 restrictive gun laws passed since 1963 have had the same results as the 9300 enacted betwween 1904 and 1963. That is, no benefits at all. No lives saved, but many lost were the actual results of American gun controls.
So where would you profer to live. I a land where only one home in ive had alockable exterior door, One new home in six had a lock that could be opened with a dim store “skeleton key,” and the homicide rate was less than 1 per 100,000 population, OR..
Would you prfer to live with gun controls, where the overwhelming majority of exterior doors are protected with a regular lock, a dead lock, and some sort of third to fifth lockiing mechanism, such as a turnbolt at the top and bottom of exterior doors, and the homicide rt goes as high as 87 per 100,000 population:
As the Book says, in effect, “Apple trees do not bear nuts, thorn bushes do not make good salads, so by their fruits you shall know them. [Matthew 7:16}
The fruits of every restrictive gun law that has been regularly enforced has been the same. Soaring crime rates, particularly violent crime rates, with long term increases in the 300 to 800 percent range, depending on the stringency of the law, the level of enforcement, and social and economic conditions.
So the next time some activist says “Gun control -will, may, or might- reduce violent crime, ask him where any of those laws have lived up to the propaganda and actually provided benefits. The activists cannot give an honest answer because too many people on this planet know the facts are are willing to correct gun ban propaganda.
Straner