Our Constitutional Right to Bear Arms is in Jeopardy

Let me start off by stating that if you're not into firearms and you believe what Governor Cuomo did this week is at all legally, morally and ethically sound, you won't like this post. Not one little bit.

I am not a right sided wing nut that is opposed to any other viewpoint other than my own. Matter of fact, I grew up in a very democratic household for a majority of my youth. It has been with time, research and many reads that I have formulated my own, educated opinion. I am extremely passionate about the gun control argument and I believe more Americans should be. It is our duty as American citizens to tell our government to uphold the rights that our forefathers established to ensure our freedoms. 

I feel a lot of the people who state; "these stricter gun policies are super great," or "Thank God for Cuomo and finally someone taking a stand" have very little experience with firearms. They have probably never shot one, have never been trained on how to handle one, or have been taught to fear them. Yes, firearms are powerful pieces of beautiful (in my own view point) machinery. But they serve a purpose. They are meant to protect your person and your family against criminals, intruders and a tyrannical government. 

Often times it is presumed that the right to bear arms originated here in the United States, however, this aspect of law originated in England. In 1689, the English Bill of Rights allowed for the citizens “to have arms for their defense” (Malcom, 2002). Renowned English scholars and lawyers such as William Blackstone, as would later be seen in the United States Constitution, felt that the possession of firearms by citizens would, “in extremes,” protect all the other rights of citizens (Malcolm, 2002). Thomas Jefferson felt the right to bear arms should be placed after the right to free speech, as he felt it was the basis to protect the rights permitted in the other amendments. Although self-protection clearly was understood as part of the right to bear arms, the principle of the amendment in The Constitution and the earlier English Bill of Rights, was the more profound, and presumably rare, purpose of protection from a tyrannical government (Malcolm, 2002). 

Many people are under the presumption that the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment of the Constitution relates to the right to protect oneself from criminal attack. In fact, the founders of the nation incorporated the Second Amendment into the Constitution so that the populace could protect themselves against a tyrannical government (LaPierre, 2002). The writers of the Constitution, particularly Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, felt that the amendment was essential to provide a final means for the populace to insure a government “by the people” (LaPierre, 2002 & Malcom, 2002). It felt that if the government was the sole possessor of arms, the people could, in time of crisis, become subjects to the whims of such a government (Malcolm, 2002). “The United States is unique among nations in that it trusts its citizens to possess arms” (Adams, 1996). 

Here's what's difficult for me to swallow- Without any committee hearing or testimony, without public comment or even proper legislative procedure, Governor Cuomo and other politicians made a decision to regulate and restrict the amount of rounds a person is able to carry, placed background checks on ammunition sales and ended online sales of firearms and ammunition. I'm sorry- but I thought the State of New York discussed it's new legislation with it's people? I thought we would at least be able to have our voices heard. But we never got that chance. Declaring this piece of legislation as "a message of necessity" is laughable. 

This is a political stunt by Cuomo to say to New Yorkers, "Hey look, I did something here. Look, I established stricter gun laws." Oh really, because taking a 10 round magazine down to 7 really makes a huge difference. First off, do you really think that any non-law abiding criminal is going to say "Now wait just one minute. I have 8 rounds in my glock. I better take one out so I am not breaking any laws before I rape you and shoot you." No. They're not. And let's hypothetically say they wanted one part of their crime to be law abiding and they decided to have 7 rounds in the one magazine. Do you think that it's difficult to reload a weapon? Assuming our criminal does not a significant IQ impairment, I am pretty sure within a few seconds he would be able to successfully accomplish a reload. All it does is slow me, a law abiding citizen, down. I shouldn't have to reload several times. If someone comes into my home or tries to mug me on the street I should be allowed to have as many rounds in my firearm as I see fit. 

Enforcing background checks on ammunition, really? Because, you know, Adam Lanza, the same guy who stole the guns from his mother can just go steal ammunition as well. Just because you're doing a background check on someone who is legally able to buy ammunition does not mean those with mental illness, or those who have been denied a carry permit will not be able to get their dirty little hands on ammunition. 

All this piece of legislation is doing is making hundreds of thousands of responsible, law abiding, gun owners criminals. And it sickens me. 

In case our country has turned a blind eye, may I remind you that in 1929 Stalin removed guns from his citizens only to turn around and murder more than twenty million once they became defenseless. 

Again in 1956, Pot removed weapons from his citizens only to commit mass murder and kill more than 2 million. 

In 1938, Hitler disarmed his nation and committed one of the most horrific genocides this world has ever seen. More than 13 million were killed. 

In 1935 Mao disarmed his country and again more than 20 million were murdered. 

You see what happens when a government disarms their citizens? Yes, I am aware this piece of legislation is not DISARMING Americans, but it's another step closer. How much more are Americans expected to give up to "satisfy" our government. Why are not looking at the source of these mass murders? Why are we not making changes in our mental health system? Instead of pill popping our mentally ill, why are they not being subjected to stricter standards? Why aren't more being institutionalized? It's not guns killing people, it's people killing people. Why aren't we cracking down on those who are committing the crimes? Instead, you're punishing people like me for being mentally sane, law abiding and healthy. It makes no sense. 

Instead of passing legislation on gun restrictions, Cuomo and his team of morons should have been writing up a proposal on strengthening our incredibly weak and loop hole filled mental health system. Or better yet, why don't these jackasses in our government take care of our spending issues. Propose a bill that will actually make a difference in America. 

For those who want to talk numbers; I invite you to take a peak at a video I stumbled upon. No we're not the highest in gun related violence in the world.  

Gun laws vary substantially from state to state. Looking at the availability of firearms allows that variable to be isolated with regards to its impact on violent crime. Vermont, which has among the most lax gun laws in the United States, has a murder rate from firearms that is the second lowest in the United States (Lott, 2010). Any person over twenty-one without a record of criminal or mental health issues may own a gun in Vermont. Similarly, Alaska, which has among the highest rates of gun ownership in the United States, has a murder rate by firearms that is among the lowest in the United States per one thousand population, and that is ninety percent less than Washington D.C, where gun laws are among the most stringent in the United States.

Florida passed a concealed carry law in 1987. Between October 1, 1987 and November 30, 2008, Florida issued 1,439,446 people firearms permits to carry concealed. Perhaps understandably, great concern was raised as to the impact of such a vast number of people carrying firearms. In fact, the first ten years of the law, firearms related crimes decreased by ten percent and only .01 percent of permit holder have had their permit revoked for any reason (Lott, 2010). Similarly, in Virginia, not a single permit holder committed a violent crime between 2006 and 2008 related to firearms (Lott, 2010). 

Moorhouse and Wanner addressed the issue of whether or not gun control reduces crime or does crime increase gun control. During their study, they outline six specific gun control measures; 1) registration of firearms including the purchase permits and gun registration of handguns and long guns. 2) Safety training required before purchase. 3) Regulation of firearm sales including background checks, minimum age requirements for purchasing a firearm, a waiting period before a sale can be completed, one-gun-a month limitation on purchases, all applied to long guns and handguns, plus a ban of “Saturday Night Specials,” junk guns, and assault weapons. 4) Safe storage laws including child access prevention law. 5) Owner licensing for possession of handguns and or long guns and minimum age restriction for gun possession. 6) The presence of more restrictive municipal and county ordinances.  (Moorhouse & Wanner, 2006). 

32 states require background checks going beyond federal requirements, a number have no mechanism for ensuring that checks are made. What Moorhouse and Wanner found during their empirical analysis was that there was no evidence to support the contention that gun control reduces crime rates. (Moorhouse and Wanner, 2006). Law abiding citizens can be expected to confrom to the law an obtain permits, register guns, and enroll in firearms safety courses. Criminals regularly violate the law by purchasing guns on illegal black markets or by stealing them (Moorhouse and Wanner, 2006). 

Or maybe people are just so up in arms because they just simply don't know the difference between an "assault weapon" and an "assault rifle." I hate using the term assault, period. It's semi-automatic or fully automatic. But ok. I'll go with it. 

Let's define an assault weapon. An assault weapon is basically a semiautomatic firearm with a military appearance. Semi-automatic means the trigger must be pulled for each shot, after which the firearm extracts the spent shell casing and chambers a fresh round, readying the gun for the next shot. This is vastly different from the military assault rifled and machine pistols, which some assault weapons are designed to look like. 

An assault rifle has a mechanism that allows for fully automatic firing, so that as long as the trigger is squeezed, cartridges will continue to be fired in rapid succession until all ammunition is exhausted. These typed of firearms have been heavily regulated since 1934. The average person (and many gun owners) have a difficult time distinguishing between the two. 

The functionality of assault weapons is no different than any other semi-automatic that have been available for over 100 years. There is a "features" test for determining if the firearm is an assault weapon. The test, strangely enough is not based on complex ballistic testing, the power of the cartridge fired, or any other factor that has effect on lethality. Instead, its based on is cosmetic and ergonomic design. 

The following video explains exactly the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle. 

I urge you, if you managed to make it all the way to the end of this post to PLEASE contact your local assemblyman and tell them what you think. 

I don't know how much longer I can log onto a social media outlet and continue to read peoples ignorance. People need to take the time to read, and read a lot. Maybe then their eyes would be open to what I can see. Just maybe.