So, it seems that Gun Control is back in the spotlight this campaign season. But it’s not what you might think. Even though Michael Bloomberg sunk millions into the Democrat war chests in Virginia, enabling the candidates to “out gun” (pun intended) the campaigns of the Republican candidates … they still lost. Maybe the voting public is finally catching on to the fact that gun control, as defined by the Democrats, does nothing but take guns out of the hands of good, honest people and leaves them in the hands of criminals.

gun-control-81News Flash, folks … criminals will always be able to get guns because they’re, well, CRIMINALS! They don’t play by the rules in the first place, so what makes you think a more severe background check will cause them to suddenly come to an epiphany and make the decision to attempt to buy their guns legally? Is everyone in the Democrat leadership some special kind of stupid??? The only thing stricter gun control does for the criminal is insure him that he’ll be the only one with a gun. Does that really make you feel safer? But first, let’s look at some history of gun control and how well it has worked so far.

A Little History…

Let’s start with Adolf Hitler. Yes, I know that the progressives reading this are already gearing up to claim that Hitler’s gun control legacy is a lie, but unlike them, I will provide actual texts and citations to make my case, beginning with this statement out Hitler’s own mouth.

“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.” (Cameron N. & Stevens R., 1961, Hitler’s Secret Conversations)

Does this sound like a benevolent dictator? Uh, no, because his real intentions were made clear on November 9, 1938, when in a move known as “The Night of the Broken Glass,” the Nazi army, under the instructions of Hitler and his confidants, enacted a massive and well-coordinated attack on Jews through all of the Reich. This was made possible because of several ordinances set in place by the Weimar Republic under Nazi control that made illegal the possession of firearms by “enemies of the State.” And, who decided who was an enemy? How many guesses do you need?GUN-CONTROL

Add to this that the Nazi rise to power, fully realized in 1933, was complimented by numerous raids against any who spoke out against the Party, labeling them Communists, and removing firearms from their possession. Then, earlier in 1938, Hitler signed into law a sweeping gun control act that benefited the Nazi Party, and all of its associated arms, at the expense of its enemies.

Interestingly enough, the Weimar discovered records for the proposed Nazi take-over in 1931, put together by a future Gestapo officer. The Weimar government reacted by registering all privately owned guns in Germany; records which played right into Hitler’s hands in the future disarmament of his enemies.

…and Some More Recent History

Ok, I’ve shoved enough Hitler down everybody’s throats, so let’s get a bit closer to home and look at gun control in the U. S. and see how well that’s worked out for us. In 1938, while Hitler was busy in Germany, the United States passed theFederal Firearms Act regulating the interstate trade of firearms and requiring retail sellers of guns and ammunition to obtain a license which had to be renewed yearly. It also required sellers to keep records of who bought the guns. So, we see the first fledgling attempt to register firearms.

Next we move on to 1968 and the Gun Control Act. In this legislation limitations on the sale of guns and established the specific background of those citizens for which it was unlawful to own or carry firearms. This was followed by the creation of the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms in 1972 to insure compliance with those laws. Then, in 1977 the District of Columbia enacted its Anti-Handgun law, making it illegal to have a handgun in the District except for law enforcement personnel. This wonderfully progressive move was supposed to prove that strict gun control was the perfect deterrent to violent crime. Unfortunately, the lawmakers forgot the truism, “When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns.”

Needless to say, the number of violent crimes did not drop. As the population figures stayed relatively stable, the landlocked District can only support a finite number of people, crime figures actually rose a bit during the 1980’s, and during the “Crack Epidemic” of the 1990’s, murders and property crimes went through the roof. According to a CBS News report from March, 2008, over 8,400 murders had taken place since the Law went into effect and 80% of the murders in 2007 were gun crimes. Citizens interviewed for the article all felt as if the right to protect themselves had been taken away.

The city’s leaders brazenly stated that less legally owned guns were available to steal, reducing the number of guns on the street, while in reality, guns flooded into DC from Maryland and Virginia where they were still legal. In this experiment, straight out of Orwell’s 1984, the Government loses. We love Big Brother! Let’s see what else the magic of gun control has accomplished.

…and Now We Have…

In 1998 suits were filed in Chicago, New Orleans and California against gun manufacturers, claiming that they were responsible for gun crimes. I suppose they believed that the guns just jumped out of the boxes and went on killing sprees. The California action was immediately dismissed, and the others came to nothing. In fact, the actions back-fired, as 32 state legislatures enacted laws protecting gun makers from this type of litigation. Apparently, these law-makers realized the guns were not capable of shooting someone on their own.

After the theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado in 2013, state lawmakers leaped to enact stricter gun laws, following the flawed liberal reasoning that the guns were at fault. Now, don’t get me wrong, gun crimes and mass shootings are horrible, especially on the families. Nevertheless, an investigative report by Channel 7 News in Denver, released October 2, 2015, shows that the percentage of crimes involving guns actually increased after the new legislation was passed. Maybe if Colorado had a “concealed carry” law like Texas and thirty other states, the aurora shooting would never have taken place.images

According to a Cato Institute Reportfrom May, 2000, among the 31 states that have concealed carry laws, violent crime statistics are, on the average, 24% lower than other states. The report also shows that stricter gun control laws would have had no effect on the Columbine shooting, as the two shooters violated close to 20 then current laws. The report goes on to show that waiting periods have no effect on crime rates. Maybe that’s because criminals have no waiting period. They pay the arms dealer and get their guns.

An Inconvenient Truth…

Still, every time a shooting takes place, the gun control lobby comes out in force, looking to take away more of the Second Amendment Rights we enjoy. Let’s look at that, shall we?

Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United 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. (Wex Legal Dictionary)

First, let’s recall what the document comprised of the first ten amendments to our Constitution is called: The Bill of Rights. This is not the rights of the government. It is the rights of the people, and was designed to limit the reach of government so there would never be a repeat of the tyranny of King George. The Second Amendment is known as the right to bear arms. The first action of an aggressor government is to erode those rights. Remember Germany, the Weimar Reich, and Hitler? Of course, it’s easy to believe that none of that will happen to us. We’re the greatest Democracy of all times!

But let’s look a little closer to home and the words of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter in his historic dissent in the case of Davis vs. the United States in 1946.

“We are in danger of forgetting that the Bill of Rights reflects experience with police excesses. It is not only under Nazi rule that police excesses are inimical to freedom. It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end.”

Davis vs. the United States was not about guns, but rather about illegal search and seizure, a violation of our 4th and 5th amendment rights, but Justice Frankfurter’s observations hold true nonetheless. Once the government is allowed to erode our rights in any individual theater, then the erosion will continue wherever the government choses. I made an inference earlier to the United States being a Democracy. How many of you realize that was a false statement? We were never meant to be a Democracy, as a Democracy is inherently a Socialist form of government. The United States is meant to be a Republic where each State has the right to govern itself, the Federal Government only involved in issues of interstate merit.

What Next?

Also, a Republic is to be founded on the “rule of law,” while a Democracy is founded on the “rule of the majority,” an ever-changing mirror focused on the whim of elecimages (1)ted officials. We see this every day in our “poll driven” age of politics; elected officials ever having their “finger in the wind” and changing position so constantly that nobody can keep up. We only have to remember the campaign cry of the Republicans that lost John Kerry the election of 2004 to George Bush: “I was for the Iraq war before I was against it.” This answer to a debate question allowed the Republicans to paint Kerry as a “flip-flop” candidate, or one who changed position to whatever was popular at the time. The words of James Madison come down to us through the years to warn us of just the elitist type of government we now have…

“We may define a republic to be … a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.” James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)

The warning here is against the stranglehold of a few. Madison identified them as “nobles” because that was the elitist of that time. Today we see the same thing in the form of the “career politician,” one who has been a Washington Insider for so long that he or she is under the impression that they know what is good for us better than “we the people” do, ourselves. Often this is a position of blatant hypocrisy. A good example is California State Senator Leland Yee, one of the most outspoken for anti-gun laws, who was arrested in trafficking in illegal guns and shoulder fired missiles. But of late, there has been a backlash from among the governed. The people are becoming enraged at the elitist mindset and are expressing themselves in groups such as the “Tea Party,” “Concerned Women for America,” “The American Family Association,” and “The National Black Republican Association.”

The National Rifle Association, of course, has been around for years, lobbying against the erosion of our gun rights. The Second Amendment guaranteed the right of the individual to bear arms in the protection of family, country, and individual rights. Even though we have a defined military, the intent of this amendment was not to define that entity. It was the definition of a State within a Republic with individuals armed to disallow a repeat of what happened to the American Colonies. As far as our race to pass more gun control, let’s not get in a hurry until we are able to enforce those we have now. If Eric and Dylan had been caught breaking the twenty gun laws they were already breaking, Columbine would never have happened. If Colorado had been a “Concealed Carry” State, then the shooter in Aurora might have hesitated, thinking there might be someone shooting back. Think about it. Think long and hard before you cry out for more of YOUR rights to be taken away…..others are already thinking about it. Ask the Democrats who lost elections last year in Virginia. Or ask Parnell McNamara. He likes to make his own laws concerning guns.

McNamara campaigned in 2012 as the “Second Amendment Candidate” which would make good sense, as he has his own “for profit” Concealed Carry Course.  He also promised to push for a “fast lane” at the McLennan County Courthouse for granting Concealed Handgun Permits to those who were law-abiding citizens.  That hasn’t happened.  Instead, Parnell has worked to tkae away more of our rights to carry our guns.  In fact, he even defied the State Attorney General by putting up signs at the same courthouse (the one he was going to improve Second Amendment Rights at) not allowing guns on the premises.

The above information was compiled by Randall Gates, another County Watchdog and irritater of the foolish. It is evident from this that Parnell has no intention of pursuing the promises made during the previous campaign, so why should we expect him to do so this time. In fact, there is only one candidate in the race that has gone on record both on the James Show on Newstalk 1230 and in the Waco Trib and said he would uphold the law, not make his own. That candidate is Willie Tompkins. If you believe your Second Amendment Rights, among others, are being ignored by the current Sheriff, then don’t vote to repeat the situation for another four years.