===========================================================================
 BBS: AirPower Information Systems
Date: 04-30-95 (21:33)             Number: 73
From: DAVE MARKOWITZ               Refer#: 15
  To: DEREK TOMBRELLO               Recvd: NO  
Subj: help needed for report...      Conf: (73)  RTKBA Fir
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DT>my girlfriend has to do a report for school on gun control...
DT>i volunteered to help her, but we also need your help.  we need about 10
DT>opinions from you on the subject.  go into as much detail as you can.  all

        [snip]

        "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 to the U.S. Constitution

        This oft-quoted sentence is the basis of legal protection of our
right to keep and bear arms.  When the Constitution was originally
written, there was no Bill of Rights.  The Federalists of the time felt
that since the government was one of limited and enumerated powers, a
specific listing of rights was both unneeded and possibly
counterproductive, because any rights not enumerated might be trample
on. The Anti-Federalists on the other hand, wisely saw that a Bill of
Rights was necessary, because much of the wording in the Constitution
which grants power is necessarily vague.  Thus a compromise was reached
whereby the Constitution was ratified on the condition that a Bill of
Rights would be added.

        The first 9 amendments all pertain to individual rights, and if
read using the meanings of the words _as understood at the time
written_, have no other logical interpretation.  The 10th Amendment
reserves power not specifically granted to the Federal gov't to the
States or the people.

        But why include the right to keep and bear arms?

        Again we need to go to the historical context.  The Constitution
was written when the recent War of Independence was still fresh in the
minds of the Framers.  Hence, the "...security of a free State..."
language.  The Framers intended the Second Amendment as a safeguard
against foreign-born tyranny, AND also against tyranny of domestic
origin.  Do not forget that the enemy we fought in the Revolution can be
considered domestic - after all, we were British colonies.

        The Framers had a great fear of standing armies in peacetime, in
that they could be a threat to a "free State."  In Europe, it was
standard for most common people to be disarmed; most of Europe was ruled
by absolute monarchies at this time.  Also, the Framers knew British
history.  After the English Civil War in the 1600s, Britain was ruled by
a military dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell.

        Further, the Framers knew that under English Common Law, which
is the wellspring of American law, the right to keep and bear arms had
long been recognized.

        Another thing to consider was that the modern concept of police
didn't come into being until well after the 1790s.

        All this being true, why is the right to keep and bear arms
relevant toady, and are the benefits outweighed by the costs?

        The right to keep and bear arms is as relevant today as it was
204 years ago.  Governments by their nature are always a threat to
liberty, even here in the U.S.  That is why we have civil rights laws,
which are often enforced against the government or its agents.  But in
the event the courts are unwilling or unable to enforce these laws, as
well as the guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the people are then
possessed of the ultimate check and balance.

        Aside from the aspect of helping to keep us free from
governmental oppression, arms in civilian hands serve the valuable
purpose of providing a means of protection from criminals.  Professor
Gary Kleck at Florida State University has done extensive research into
this subject, and concluded that civilians use firearms in defense of
life and property up to 2.5 MILLION times each year.  Note that in most
instances, the gun isn't even fired - merely showing it causes the
criminal to surrender or flee.  This number is far in excess of the
amount of criminal usage.  So any costs incurred as a result of criminal
misuse of firearms is outweighed by the benefits we gain by having
ordinary citizens armed.

        As for gun control measures, none has ever been proven to be
effective in reducing crime rates.  According to the FBI, over 90% of
criminals acquire their guns illegally, either through the black market
or theft.  Waiting periods and background checks won't do anything to
stop these people.  Nor has any reputable scientifically gathered
evidence ever been offered to prove that waiting periods result in a
decrease in "crimes of passion."  As for "assault weapons," only a
miniscule percentage (under 1%) of crimes committed with a gun involve
and "assault weapon."  The reason is simple - most AWs are big and bulky
rifles or shotguns, and aren't easily concealable, which is important to
criminals.  Further, they tend to be expensive; criminals often
don't have the cash to acquire one.  [The whole AW hysteria is just that
- hysteria based on an intimidating appearance. Flash hiders don't kill,
and I have yet to hear of anybody being bayonetted with one.   My
Louisville Slugger would be an "assault weapon" if I cracked somebody
over the head with it.]

        So, in the end, all the historical evidence points to the fact
that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, while
current statistical evidence points to the failure of gun control laws,
as well as the positive value civilian ownership of arms.

        For further reading I recommend:
        The Federalist Papers,
        The Anti-Federalist Papers,
        "That Every Man Be Armed, the Evolution of a Constitutional
        Right" by Stephen P. Halbrook, and
        "Stopping Power, Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns" by J. Neil
        Schulman.

        BTW: Just so you know where I'm coming from, and not to brag, I
have a Bachelor's degree in History-Politics, and I have just about
finished my second year of law school.  (I'm doing this for recreation
on a study break!)  Good luck.

        Dave

 * SLMR 2.1a * Lexington & Concord: Backfired attempt at gun control.
