posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 07:00 AM
The Bloomington, Indiana Herald Times made an announcement on November 30th of 2009 that it would launch a new gun permit data base where anyone is
able to go on line and search that newspapers data base to discover the number of gun permits by county, city, town or street. While, at this time
the names and addresses of people with gun permits are being withheld, it is a disturbing practice that truly serves no purpose. Of course, the
freedom of the press shall not be abrogated or derogated and they are well within their right to publish such information. They have the right to do
so because gun permits are public records.
This may seem to be a conflict between the First and Second Amendment but it is not. The question should never be does the press have the right to
publish public records, the question is what makes any state or the federal government think they can impose permit laws to begin with? I have always
held the strong conviction that the "pen is mightier than the sword", (although I am not so sure it is mightier than a gun), and I have never owned
a gun nor was I raised in any "gun culture". However, I have held with equal conviction that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to
make sure the First Amendment and all subsequent Amendments, particularly within the Bill of Rights, was effectively protected.
It has long been a claim by those who assert that the local, state and federal governments do have a right to regulate gun ownership based on the
language of the Amendment itself. The Second Amendment in its full text states:
"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."
It is the "well regulated militia" that is used to justify the current belief that government has a right to permit gun ownership. There are major
flaws in this argument the most important one being that one can not rely on part of the text of the Second Amendment and ignore the rest in order to
justify such permitting. A gun permit means that governments can deny granting a permit and that denial of permit then becomes an infringement on
the right of a person to keep and bear arms. There are those who will argue that the Second Amendment is not an individual right but a collective
right where "a well regulated militia" is guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms but this is not what that Amendment says.
What then, is meant by "well regulated militia"? Did it mean only those who served in a militia have the right to bear arms? Consider what our
Founders said on the matter. First there is Alexander Hamilton, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers which itself was a collection of
pamphlets written by he, John Jay and James Madison in defense of the proposed document that became The Constitution for the United States of America.
In Federalist Number 28 Hamilton states:
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of
self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with
infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with
supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take
no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their
courage and despair."
Hamilton also says in the Federalist Papers 184-188:
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
In Federalist Papers Number 48 James Madison has this to say:
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the
governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
Thomas Jefferson in his Proposal for the Virginia Constitution wrote this:
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
In 1787 in a letter written to William Stephens Smith Jefferson wrote:
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them
Samuel Adams made this assertion:
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or
to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
Noah Webster had this to say:
"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 the 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. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people
perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution
of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
Patrick Henry said this:
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference
between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of
them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety,
or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
In conclusion, I would like to quote a man who was never American, but a tyrant of another nation, not because of but in spite of Godwin's so called
smarmy little "law", Adolf Hitler once said:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have
allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
It is my firm belief that permitting guns in the U.S. is unconstitutional and should be challenged by the People.