Making The Case For INCREASED Gun Ownership

There is a city in Cobb County, GA called Kennesaw  – where gun ownership is mandatory. It’s not the “Wild West” like some people predicted when it passed a mandatory gun ownership law. “The city of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation’s ‘10 best towns for families.’

In 1982 the city passed the following ordinance [Sec 34-21] which was in response to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

The city's website states that Kennesaw “has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County,” one of the most populous counties in Georgia. In fact, from 1982 through 2009, Kennesaw had been nearly murder free with one murder occurring in 2007.

There were three murders in 2010 committed by the same man in what is described as a “school safety zone,” an area extending 1,000 feet from any school, including adult colleges and technical schools. This means that even though Kennesaw has the most liberal gun laws in the United States, employees at the facility where the murders were committed could not have a gun on the premises.

Statically, it has been shown that - nationwide - as legal gun ownership by law-abiding citizens increases, violent crime decreases.  Yet the left (including the socialist-dominated United Nations) constantly argues for greater restrictions on private firearms ownership.

There is a discomfiting pattern developing in the USA.  One of increased government intervention in, and control of, our Constitutional rights. One of collusion on an International scale, and one which could very easily permit Obama to abrogate his presidential responsibilities in favor of UN demands. The left-wing Obama administration is "chomping at the bit" for an opportunity to sign on to the UN's Arms Trade Treaty. That way - when the international gun grab begins - Obama can maintain a high degree of deniablility from the actions. There is much more to the UN ATT than meets the eye. It is worded in such a fashion that loopholes large enough to drive a military tank through exist... possibly for the purpose of actually driving military tanks through them, and down Mainstreet, USA, as the jackbooted, blue-helmeted UN thugs kick down doors and confiscate whatever they determine to be "illegal firearms". The goal of the "United Nations" is WORLD DOMINATION, and the majority of the 192 country/states that make up the UN are inimical to the USA, our successes, our freedom, and our way of life in general.

Contact your Senators and demand that they OPPOSE the UN's Arms Trade Treaty. It's not good for American citizens, and it's not good for the USA. In WWII, the Japanese decided against a land battle within the USA because - according to Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy - "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." It is our ability, as a nation, to defend our country, our culture, our sovereignty and our Constitution, particularly at the individual level, that keeps us free from land invasions (other than via our southern border, anyway. Mexico has been invading us for decades!).

While I'm On The Subject of The Constitution ...

and the United States Supreme Court, the "Supremes" finally clarified a question that's been in dispute for decades. Does the Second Amendment to the Constitution give private citizens the right to keep and bear arms? And the answer was ... (drum roll, please) ... YES! (I know that somewhere out there is a dyslexic who now plans to keep and arm bears, but that's a whole different issue). Although it was a close call, the 5-4 vote was a long-overdue victory for those of us who believe in the Constitution as it was written. After the revolutionary war, we didn't have much of a standing, professional army, hence: "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." The "Militia" were volunteer citizens who would bear arms for the public defense. Following the line of thought in my preceding post, once again the importance of this Amendment is emphasized by its being placed in the second position of the Bill of Rights - which are the first ten Amendments to the Constitution.

The Court, by majority opinion, ruled that the citizens of this country have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to own firearms, but stopped short of saying everybody has the right to "bear" them. One of the 19 definitions given for the word bear in the American Heritage Dictionary is "to carry from one place to another; transport". We are well aware that there are certain people who should not be allowed to even spell the word gun, much less own or carry one! Under what circumstances, and in what manner, should this 'right' be modified? I do not believe that convicted felons, or those persons adjudged mentally ill, or convicted of any crime of violence should be allowed to own or carry firearms. And that is, at present, the way the Federal law is written. I would add "gang members" to that list.

Federal requirements for registration of firearms ... I have mixed feelings about this one. I think the arms owning/bearing citizenry would feel more secure if the owner of firearms was registered, as opposed to registering by make, model, and serial number each weapon owned by the individual. The Feds could still require their $10 phone call, but only to verify that the applicant has been subjected to a background investigation by the FBI, and they could find nothing in that persons history that would disqualify him/her from purchasing an additional weapon. They do not need to know how many of what the law abiding citizen has in his/her possession. That would make a 'gun grab' by the government, or invaders, just too easy.

Those of us who hold a CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon permit), issued by any state, should be permitted to carry concealed in all states, inasmuch as all CCW holders must have the same FBI background investigation, over and above the basic Federal authorization to purchase a firearm. As for variations from state-to-state for the qualifications (background investigation, training, and/or demonstration of proficiency, etc.) such requirements should remain within the purview of the Tenth Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") provision for "States' rights". However, the Feds have a way of leveraging states into submitting to their collective will - the threat of withholding Federal tax monies that have been earmarked for things like schools, highway improvements, and various "pork" projects.

Before it becomes a perfect system, there will have to be many concepts proffered, many definitions clarified, and precise procedures established to ensure the Constitutional application of the Second Amendment, while State governments ensure that the general population is protected from those who have, through personal actions, and adjudication, proven themselves to be less- than-good risks around firearms. There has to be a provision for the application of common sense for the common good involved.