"As people who have lost their liberties at the hands of their *own*
government throughout history have discovered, once the sacrifice and
surrender of rights has begun, the march toward tyranny becomes inexorable."

Think "some form" of gun control is okay? Think NFA '34 ($200 tax/permit
required on certain firearms). Think: US-GCA '68 ("prohibited persons"
Patterned after 1938 Nazi weapons law). Think:1986 machine gun ban.
Think: 1994 "assault weapons" ban. Think: 1996 Kohl (ill-defined school
zones)-Lautenberg (spank your child, push your spouse, minor
misdemeanors) gun ban amendments, now law. Think SB 467-2004 "child
endangerment" bill (ill-defining "criminal negligence": now a Georgia
gun control law). Think: Want to carry a gun concealed? Government
permission to exercise that right IS required (Georgia law).Think:
20,000 plus gun control laws in America, the "land of the "free"? and
the home of the "brave"?" Think: Prosecute the unconstitutional gun
control laws already on the books in America? THINK: The march toward
tyranny in America has ALREADY begun! ....Edwin

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornber...

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
by Jacob Hornberger

Arguably, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should have been
made first in the Bill of Rights because without the right to keep and
bear arms, such rights as freedom of speech and freedom of the press
would be treated as nothing more than meaningless "privileges" bestowed
and taken away by government officials at will. The Second Amendment is
the American people's ultimate insurance policy against tyranny because
government officials know that guns in the hands of the people provide
the only practical means by which to resist tyranny. They know that a
disarmed society almost always becomes an obedient society in the face
of omnipotent, tyrannical government.

Gun-control advocates suggest that gun control will result in a safer,
more secure environment for people. Their arguments are false,
fallacious, and dangerous. Let's examine why.

One underlying assumption of gun-control laws is that people will obey
them. The problem with that assumption, however, is that while it might
be valid with respect to people who generally believe in obeying the
laws of society, it is invalid with respect to people who hold society's
laws in disrespect.

Therefore, gun-control laws would be effective in disarming peaceful and
law-abiding people but would be ineffective in disarming people who have
no reservations about breaking laws against murder, burglary, rape, and
robbery. In other words, if a person intends to murder or rape another
person, what are the chances that he's going to say to himself, "I can't
commit this murder or rape with a gun because that would be against the
law"? No chance! To belabor the obvious, if a person has no respect for
a law against murder or rape, he's not going to have any respect for a
law prohibiting him from possessing a gun.

The problem, then, is obvious: By disarming peaceful and law-abiding
people, a gun-control law effectively precludes the intended victim of
murder and rape from possessing an excellent means by which to defend
himself or herself from the murderer and the rapist. As the popular
saying goes, "God didn't make men equal; Sam Colt did." Guns enable
weaker people to protect themselves from the bigger, stronger bullies in
life who have no reservations about murdering or raping other human beings.

There's a corollary principle involved here: Even though everyone in
society might not choose to arm himself, the right to keep and bear arms
makes everyone in society, including those who choose not to possess
weapons, safer from the likes of murderers and rapists. Why is this so?
Because the murderer and rapist do not know in advance who is armed and
who isn't, which means that they have to be cautious about trying to
commit their crimes. In fact, isn't that the most likely reason that
gun-control advocates never advertise too loudly that they live in a
gun-free home?

In other words, if everyone is disarmed then the violent people in
society can feel safe about murdering and raping people. But if everyone
has the right to be armed, the murderer and rapist know that there is a
good chance that they could guess wrong - that the person whom they've
chosen to murder or rape might fire first with the weapon in his
possession.

A black-market in guns

A second underlying assumption of gun control is that guns will no
longer be available to anyone, including the violent people who wish to
procure them. This assumption is based on the hope that gun control will
simply wipe guns totally out of existence, perhaps through some type of
government buy-back scheme by which people are encouraged to turn in
their weapons to the officials who promise to destroy or store them.
Again, the assumption is false, fallacious, and dangerous.

One problem with this assumption is that it fails to take into
consideration the free market or, more precisely, the black market that
inevitably springs up in response to laws that attempt to restrict the
supply of some product or service. Consider, for example, the war on
drugs, a war in which the federal government has attempted to eliminate
the supply of drugs for at least 30 years. Despite an increasing array
of ever-harsher laws, those who desire drugs are still able to obtain
them from those who are willing to take the risks to supply them.

Why wouldn't we expect the same result with a war on guns? Wouldn't a
black market in guns immediately spring up, just as a black market in
drugs sprang up when drugs were made illegal? And wouldn't violent,
anti-social people such as murderers and rapists be much more able and
willing to acquire guns in such a market than peaceful and law-abiding
people?

We would also be remiss if we failed to point out all the disastrous
side effects of the federal attempt to stamp out drugs - gang wars,
convenience-store killings, police corruption, and robberies, muggings,
burglaries, and thefts, not to mention the ever-increasing governmental
assaults on the civil liberties of the citizenry.

Why wouldn't we expect the same results - if not worse - with a war on
guns?

"But if we just gave the government full powers to stamp out guns, then
all guns could be stamped out once and for all, which would mean they
couldn't even be acquired illegally," gun-control advocates implicitly
suggest. That's problematic, but let's concede the point. Let's assume
that private ownership of guns is wiped out of existence in the United
States and that somehow the government is able to prevent murderers and
rapists from acquiring them in a black market.

The biggest threat to liberty

Would that make the American people safer? No, because a government that
wielded the power to wipe out all guns in that society would be an
omnipotent, tyrannical government, such as the one that exists in Cuba
or North Korea. To paraphrase an old saying, when guns are outlawed only
the government will have guns.

This brings us back to the primary argument against gun control - that
it serves as a check on tyranny because those in political power know
that people possess the means to resist tyranny violently, perhaps even
through revolution or rebellion, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the
Declaration of Independence.

Keep in mind the entire philosophy that underlies both the Constitution
and Bill of Rights - that the biggest threat to the freedom and
well-being of the American people lies with their own federal officials.
Now, some people find that notion embarrassing - that is, the notion
that our own federal officials would ever impose tyranny on their own
people. But the Founders and the Framers didn't find that notion
embarrassing at all, which is precisely why federal powers are expressly
limited and restricted, both in the original Constitution and in the 10
amendments that followed soon after it was enacted.

Are federal officials capable of imposing tyranny on the American
people? Well, tyranny might be a subjective concept but let's define it
by the violation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights. Are federal officials actually capable of violating those
rights? Don't they have such a principled devotion to those rights that
they would never even conceive of violating them?

The Iraq model

The answer is "No." Our ancestors were right - the federal government,
by its very nature, attracts people who have absolutely no respect for
such rights or the principles that underlie them. How do we know this?
One good way is by examining how these people behave in the absence of
constitutional restraints. A good model for such an experiment exists in
Iraq, a country that federal officials have run for more than a year.

"But the Constitution doesn't apply to how the federal government runs
Iraq," someone might argue. He would be missing my point. The point is
whether federal officials honor the rights in the Constitution because
they have to or because they believe in those principles.

How have federal officials, including the military, conducted themselves
as rulers in Iraq, with no pesky federal judges, legislature,
criminal-defense lawyers, or constitutional "technicalities" to get in
their way?

They've shot demonstrators; closed down newspapers critical of the
military; searched people's homes and businesses without warrants;
killed suspected criminals as well as innocent bystanders; arrested
people without warrants; detained criminal suspects indefinitely; denied
detainees due process of law, the right to counsel, the right to bail,
the right to jury trials, and the right to habeas corpus; imposed cruel
and unusual punishments on people consisting of torture, rape, sex
abuse, and murder by beatings; appointed unelected "interim" sub-rulers
with dictatorial powers to carry out their directives; and ensured that
an elected legislature would not be part of the "interim" regime.

And, of course, they have imposed gun control and gun confiscation and
enforced their measures with deadly force.

In other words, they've done in Iraq all the things for which Americans
rebelled against King George III - and more.

"But that doesn't mean that they would do all this to Americans." Of
course it does, especially if they believe it would be necessary for
"national security," which they inevitably would. After all, don't
forget that they arrested an American, Jose Padilla, on American soil;
charged him with conspiracy to commit terrorism; turned him over to the
Pentagon; and denied him habeas corpus, due process, right to counsel, a
jury trial, and all the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights, including even freedom of speech.

"But that's just one person," one might say. But one person leads to
another person who leads to another person, as the people of Chile and
Argentina discovered when the military regimes in those countries were
"disappearing" an ever-growing number of people during their "wars on
terrorism." As people who have lost their liberties at the hands of
their own government throughout history have discovered, once the
sacrifice and surrender of rights has begun, the march toward tyranny
becomes inexorable.

Founding principles

Perhaps a good way to conclude an article on the vital importance of the
right to keep and bear arms would be to restate the wisdom of the
Founding Fathers and the Framers:

"Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of
Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the
governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." ~ James Madison

"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at
large, than to have them properly armed and equipped." ~ Alexander Hamilton

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them,
may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which might be
occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to
the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the
next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
~ Tench Coxe

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they
are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of
people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular
troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
~ Noah Webster

"No free men shall be debarred the use of arms." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people
always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to
use them." ~ Richard Henry Lee

"The great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able
may have a gun. . . . Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and
debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own
defense?" ~ Patrick Henry

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over
the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate
governments . . . forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition. .
. . [The] several kingdoms of Europe . . . are afraid to trust the
people with arms." ~ James Madison