Fact v.s. Fiction (Part 1)

Well, the tone has settled a little bit in the mainstream media.  It's not 100% about those "Evil Guns" right now, at least until the next instance when some criminal happens to use a firearm to commit a crime (notice how they hardly ever report when a citizen uses a firearm to PREVENT a crime?)

So at this point, i'm either preaching to the choir, or talking to myself.  So far, there's been several "hits" to this page, but little interaction, yet, I still feel compelled to help spread a little truth.  All of this information is "out there" already, it's just a lot of people are either incapable, or unwilling, to go find it for themselves.  So it is with those people in mind, that I decided to dive into an ocean of statistics and present some information to destroy a lot of the hyperbole and flat out LIES you may read/hear about in the media...since there's a lot of them, I decided it might be best to tackle in several parts.  So this post will be the first of many...if you have any suggestions on other lies to dispel, please leave them in the comments section below!

Myth:  The Clinton AWB of 1994 caused the crime rate to go down

FACT:  This is a recurring theme in the National Main Stream Media these days, at least since the Aurora Colorado shootings.  Ill-informed gun grabbers love to pass this along and say that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban by the Clinton Administration was responsible for the crime rate decrease.  However, as you're about to see, this is another underhanded lie that is easily exposed by looking at the same facts that THEY chose not to present to you.

But let's not take their word for it, let's look at those facts available from the 1994 through 2010 FBI crime reports.

In the time frame DURING the Assault Weapons Ban, the average number of homicides, nation wide, due to a "rifle" firearm were 493.

Now when we compare that to the years after the ban expired, we see that the number of homicides, nation wide, attributed to "Rifles" is actually 420.  Now, I don't know about you, but 420 is less than 493 where I come from.

But how can that be?  How is it possible that MORE people were murdered by a rifle when those rifles were BANNED?  The answer is quite clear, and is actually given to us by the United States Government its self...more pointedly, the US Department of Justice.  According to them, the AWB did not have an impact on crime in the US nor did it support the allegation that large capacity magazines lead to more murders.

Myth:  The U.S.A. has the highest homicide rate in the world because of insufficient Gun Control.

FACT:  According to the United Nations Office on Drugs & Crime, The United States is not even in the top 10 country's world wide of number of Homicides.  The U.S.A. is not even in the top 100.  Nope.  We rank #110 world wide, according to the UNODC for homicide rate.

Well, how can that be?  If you look at guns per capita, The United States comes in at #1 world wide with 90 Firearms per 100 citizens, and the #2 (Yemen) trails far behind with 60 per 100 citizens followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.

So what's going on here?  How can the U.S.A. have more firearms than any other country (In both categories:  Per Capita and Over all number) yet rank far below the majority of the rest of the world for homicides?  A fact seen in the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies which showed that the United States of America possesses 270,000,000 of the ENTIRE WORLD'S 875,000,000 known firearms.  I'll tell you how:  Because the idea that the USA needs more Gun Control is pure, 100% authentic BULLSHIT.

Myth:  Most gun crimes in the United States are committed with a firearm that was purchased legally.

FACT: This one gets me more than most, as I'm sure it'll get you after reading a few facts.  To put it in simple terms, according to the Bureau of Alcohol of Tobacco and Firearms, 93% of all "Crime Guns" (A firearm used to commit a crime) are purchased ILLEGALLY. 

Myth:  The 2nd Amendment only applies to a militia

FACT:  It does not take a Constitutional scholar to realize how flawed this myth is.  It's a sure-fire sign that you're arguing with an idiot when they pull this one out of their verbal arsenal.  Let's take a very deep look at this, to put this one to rest once and for all  (A few of the examples that follow are inspired the writings of J. Neil Schulman.  I will merely do my best to reiterate and reconstruct them here, for ease of reference at later dates)

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.

These people always point to the first part of the Amendment, "A well regulated militia" and will tell you that this phrase is nothing more than a clause...a prerequisite if you will...but they let themselves down on an intellectual level by choosing the easy way out of this evaluation, and I argue, they do so intentionally.

If we evaluate that sentence, which was written in 1776, and translate it to a more modern understanding, it'd be written as

Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged

 So, as it is written, a "Well regulated militia" is not a clause, in fact, it's actually an understood principal.  Well-regulated is used as an adjective in order to modify "militia".

But, who does the regulating?  Where does this regulation come from?  It's found in the main clause of the sentence:  "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is what is essential to having a well-regulated militia.  We, the people, ARE the militia.  After all, do these people REALLY expect us to believe that a well regulated militia, to be put in place to keep government in check, should be regulated by the same government?  *Sigh*

Or to put it in simple terms, the people regulate the Government (the Military), and in order for the Government to be well-regulated, then we, the citizens of this country, have a right that is not GIVEN by the 2nd Amendment, but is IDENTIFIED by the 2nd Amendment, and is stated that this right is NOT to be infringed. 

But we really don't have to evaluate words and debate their meaning.  That's where 99% of these arguments stem from:  "What did the founding fathers and the people of their era mean?"  But we don't have to ask that, they've already left the answers:

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
- Thomas Jefferson 1776

What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

-Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
- James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244

The ultimate authority resides in the people alone.
-James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of 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 bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"
-Noah Webster in 'An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787

But if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights.
-Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.
-George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426

The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms
-Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.
-Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)

We could keep going on all day, one thing that can't be argued is that there is no shortage of quotes from our founding fathers on what the 2nd Amendment really means. The reason there is no shortage is because they believed so strongly in the importance of it. A feeling that has all but become lost in today's America and is threatened by the highest offices in the land, all in favor of robbing you of your naturally inherited freedoms in favor of gaining a little more comfort for themselves while they continue to rob this country blind.

Earlier, I prefaced this by saying that 99% of the arguments stem around this, but there's still 1% left, and that's the people who don't deny the intentions of the 2nd Amendment. They don't argue how it's written, or anything of the sort, instead they argue its relevance in today's world. They argue that it's not needed any longer, or that it only applies to the weapons of the era, and proceed to exclaim "The founding fathers could never have envisioned something like an AR15"  Well lets be honest for a moment:  If the 2nd Amendment only applies to the technology of the day, then the 1st Amendment must apply to the same.  So good by 1st Amendment on the radio, TV, and internet....

These people are intellectual deviants who take the short way out of the argument, doing themselves a great injustice by ignoring the teachings of yesterday in favor of their own version of reality for tomorrow, in other words, they don't like guns, so you shouldn't be allowed to own them.  They call themselves tolerant, but once you become the face of opposition, watch how fast their tolerance fades.

Intolerant and Angry.  Bill Maher, and people like him, are after YOUR rights

These people are very open about the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment. They say get rid of it, it shouldn't exist. They're for shredding the Constitution and replacing it with their own biased, ill informed, and hateful version of how the country should proceed. It is with those people in mind that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

This is what drove our founders to create their own country with their own rules. Rules that put power in the hands of the majority. Rules that protect the country by putting it in the most capable hands. The hands of WE...the people.

And our most important Rights are not given to us, but are inherited through the mere act of being born. We receive them by participating in this experiment called life. Whether you believe in God or not, is not relevant, as the statement of "God Given rights" implies nothing more than something you are born with. We are all born with that right, and our BILL OF RIGHTS is nothing more than a set of rules by which our GOVERNMENT must abide, and the 2nd entry to these rules guarantees that our Government is not allowed to infringe on our right to be armed and protect ourselves from ALL enemies, both foreign and especially domestic.






That about does it for Part 1. If you have more myths you'd like to talk about in future installments, please leave some ideas in the comments.