Guns' future? Look at history

  • Follow Letters

History is a marvelous thing. Though the particulars and circumstances change, it still can unerringly predict the future. This is because the actions of people, especially people in or grasping for power, do not change.

There has been great discussion that more gun control will not happen. History tells us it will, and it will be poorly written, unevenly enforced and full of unintended consequences. The history of gun control in America is one of reactions to crises – the National Firearms Act of 1934 to organized crime; in 1968 to the Kennedy assassinations; and the Brady Bill to the 1981 Reagan assassination attempt. This administration’s governing motto is not to let a crisis go to waste.

Some believe the Constitution will prevent the gun ban. Good luck; the 2010 Supreme Court decision upholding the Second Amendment was 5-4. Experts say there will be one or two justice appointments this term. Given the strident ideologues President Obama put on the court in his first term, by the time the next gun case reaches the Supreme Court, it’ll be pro-gun control 7-3.

Besides, how many amendments of the Bill of Rights still stand? One through Eight are pretty much gone. Freedom of speech, double jeopardy, searches, speedy trial, eminent domain – none of those exist anymore except in civics books. (I suspect, to cut the military budget, Obama has looked into quartering troops in private homes.)

There also is a belief in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 – that the military would not obey the order to enforce a gun ban. Really? George Washington put under arms an army larger and better-armed than any he commanded in the Revolution to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. What about Gen. “Bug-out Doug” MacArthur machine-gunning the veterans of the World War I Bonus Army? And to those relying on the cops to disobey: Just who do you think went around confiscating guns to keep the rioters and looters from harm in Los Angeles and after Hurricane Katrina?

A word of warning: Military estimates place the number of combatants in Afghanistan and Iraq at less than 2 percent of the population, yet they’re pinning down the best military forces in the world – a bunch of 10th-century-technology peasants with some iron scraps, Semtex and C-4. I cannot imagine the consequence of pitting our armed forces against a determined, educated and equipped population infuriated by a sense of betrayal.

Dave Stewart Sr.

Grovetown

(The writer is a retired U.S. Army first sergeant.)

Comments (41) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
InquiringLynn-SkepticGriggsy
47
Points
InquiringLynn-SkepticGriggsy 01/12/13 - 04:47 am
0
5
Facts
Unpublished

What are the supposed facts for those erroneous charges about our rights and liberties? The ACLU does not support any of that twaddle!
I can well imagine what such a rebellion would cause!
Why be such an extremist who would cause severe harm to this Union?
Wayne LaPierre is such an extremist and such an affront to the majority of the NRA who favor safety measures. Why make a travesty of the good work it performs?
By the way, Hitler eased up considerably on gun restrictions, despite what liars for unrestricted arms prattle! Oh, had the Jews arms, he'd have mowed them down sooner!
Guns can kill more people than other weapons can. What rational person would advocate those quick- arming rounds? No hunter or anyone else outside law enforcement and the military needs rapid fire.
We can take reasonable safety measures without violating the Second Amendment, which itself requires a well-regulated militia.
I surely hope for more justices of the caliber of those two women!

jkline
527
Points
jkline 01/12/13 - 05:06 am
8
1
Sad, but True

I am sorry to have to say that I consider Mr. Stewart's historical analysis to be right on the money.

seenitB4
87304
Points
seenitB4 01/12/13 - 09:46 am
7
0
I have to agree Mr Stewart

Many of our freedoms are fragile....we could see them disappear in our lifetime....some won't know what happened til it's too late.

RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 01/12/13 - 10:19 am
5
0
If Wayne LaPierre is an

If Wayne LaPierre is an extremist then so were our founders. As for me and my household we join with them.

Proud NRA member.

Bizkit
31463
Points
Bizkit 01/12/13 - 10:29 am
5
0
Guns are already taxed and

Guns are already taxed and regulated to death-as is hunting. Fact is without hunters there wouldn't be any game to hunt-because their fees support the maintenance and health of animal and fowl populations. It would be an ecological nightmare or just raise everyones taxes for a conservation. I don't like a prez who discriminates with who "he" thinks deserves a freedom. Gun are demonized-gay marriage he supports. Well let's see guns have killed a lot of people but so has AIDS which the initial vector was a gay flight attendant and this population and IV drug abusers were the epidemic vector. So perhaps we should ban guns and gays-they are both deadly. Now see how ridiculoius such arguments are-I'm sure there are gay gun owners too. Both should have freedom in the land of the free. Our president hates freedom and loves to discriminate.

soapy_725
43678
Points
soapy_725 01/12/13 - 10:44 am
1
0
The boiling frog will eventually lay down his pistol.
Unpublished

Frog he went a courtin' he did ride, uh huh, uh huh; frog he went a courtin' he did ride uh huh; frog he went a courtin' he did ride, sword and pistol by his side, uh huh.

RMSHEFF
16001
Points
RMSHEFF 01/12/13 - 10:46 am
6
1
Gun control is just one more

Gun control is just one more item on the progressive liberal's list of things to be accomplished. They are very patient and will settle for "baby steps" toward the elimination of all gun ownership. Just look to Europe if you want to see their true goal. They will use future tragedies and the court system to erode the 2 nd amendment. The overwhelming body counts are from hand guns in the minority communities and these deaths are largely the result of social polices that have caused the breakdown of the family. It is rare for a person that comes from a home with two parents to be involved in gun violence. If you look at crime statistics including the most recent tragedy in Connecticut you will find one common thread. This common thread is single parenthood or children without a strong father figure. I lay this breakdown in the family structure at the feet of liberal democrats and the policies they enacted over the last 40 years which eliminated any need for a father especially in the minority communities. The liberal social policies have come home to roost.

shrimp for breakfast
5456
Points
shrimp for breakfast 01/12/13 - 10:48 am
0
4
What no religion letters this norning?

How am I supposed to debate a gun letter. I don't know anything about guns, don't care about guns and have nothing to say about them except that they're loud!

Bizkit
31463
Points
Bizkit 01/12/13 - 11:25 am
3
0
I know we are all worried

I know we are all worried about our children in school but guns are nothin' to the greatest killer-sex. Yes sex. We need to ban sex till age 21 because AIDS fastest growing vector is our school age kids 13-20 years of age-of those 60% don't know they have AIDS-so they spread it more. Our societal views on sex have made it pervasive in our youth with group sex and other risky behaviors. Guns are nothin' to the devastation that is ocurring right before our eyes. Remember it can take a decade for AIDS to finally expose itself so in the next ten years we will see. Then there is all the antibiotic resistant STDs to be concerned too. Banning sex would likely be just a successful as banning guns. Get real.

dichotomy
32988
Points
dichotomy 01/12/13 - 11:36 am
3
0
Right on the money Dave. And

Right on the money Dave. And just like people do not realize the consequences of our financial debt situation, many do not realize what is right around the corner when freedom loving, Constitution believing (currently) legal gun owners are pushed too far. They are fixing to load the powder keg and then all it will take is a spark.

Our representatives have wimped on the debt issue but if gun owners wimp on this we will have lost our last bastion of a free, respected, and feared citizenry. When our politicians, and the punks and thugs, lose their fear of us we are dog meat at a Pit Bull convention.

dichotomy
32988
Points
dichotomy 01/12/13 - 11:40 am
3
0
"don't care about guns and

"don't care about guns and have nothing to say about them except that they're loud!"

Well, you could say that you owe your freedom to guns and you owe every ounce of whatever security you have to guns and the good guys that carry them.

harley_52
23390
Points
harley_52 01/12/13 - 11:42 am
4
0
More On The History Of Gun Bans...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control: From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control: From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938: From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935: From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964: From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
---- ------------- -------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970: From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956: From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control.

What makes anybody think it wouldn't happen here?

Bizkit
31463
Points
Bizkit 01/12/13 - 11:47 am
2
0
Maybe Godoy will get that

Maybe Godoy will get that civil war he is always talkin' about. Let's see we will have a bunch of paranoid conservatives packin' heat and a bunch of whiny progressives with no guns. The outcome seems certain. LOL. See progressives have to take your guns to take the rest of your freedoms too. They hate freedom except for the elite group "they" see as fit in a world they design by "their' standards. Such egocentric egomanicaly talk makes me glad this group likely won't own a gun-because they are crazy and would likely shoot you. We see it already in a progressive president who discriminates, then assassinates American citizens without due process, and uses drones to kill "supposed" bad guys and lots of innocent too (just bumps in the road). The president is already spying on American citizens and abusing the Patriotic act, so he is making his new hit list.

Bizkit
31463
Points
Bizkit 01/12/13 - 11:54 am
3
0
Right on Harley especially

Right on Harley especially when we have a progressive president who is already murdering American citizens without due process and has a hit list of more to be killed. Note his threats to by pass Congress and abuse executive priviledge. The man is a Pol pot in the making.

Little Lamb
46022
Points
Little Lamb 01/12/13 - 12:41 pm
3
0
Right On

Thank you for that 10:42 post, Harley.

Darby
25694
Points
Darby 01/12/13 - 01:30 pm
4
0
(How am I supposed to debate a gun letter. I don't know.....

anything about guns.......)

And yet you felt compelled to write two comments concerning guns in the previous letter, "Gun column hits, misses"

Odd

KSL
129740
Points
KSL 01/12/13 - 01:38 pm
2
1
100 thumbs up

@ 10:40!

Darby
25694
Points
Darby 01/12/13 - 03:20 pm
4
0
I'd like to make a comment about opponents of...

...the 2d Amendment. They know as well as you do that the amendment was placed in the Constitution to give the citizenry protection against an oppressive government as well as external threats.

There was no mention in the 2d Amendment of 30 round magazines or automatic weapons only because the standing armies of that day had no such technology. There's also no mention of "hunting" or "target practice" in the amendment either. Did you ever wonder why not?

The idea was to assure that people could not, and would not, be tread underfoot by those elected to serve them.

Trouble is, America's "domestic enemies" see a powerful government and a weak populace as a "good" thing and the 2d Amendment as an obstacle to be neutralized.

As did their fellow travelers in Europe and Asia, they are determined to chip away at the foundations of freedom until the Constitution crumbles.

Remember the mantra repeated by Al Gore so often in the nineties that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" that it can mean whatever we want it to mean.

Funny, but I'm pretty sure that the founding fathers felt that the Constitution was flexible as well, but only through the amendment process.

You want to take away the right of people to defend themselves from government oppression? That's fine, all you really need to do is introduce the 28th Amendment. Then get the Congress and the state legislatures to approve it. It's been done 27 times before. (Including one amendment to undo a previous amendment.) Accept the challenge or pack it in!

harley_52
23390
Points
harley_52 01/12/13 - 03:31 pm
4
0
Excellent Post...

...Mr. Darby

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 01/12/13 - 03:57 pm
0
5
They know as well as you do

They know as well as you do that the amendment was placed in the Constitution to give the citizenry protection against an oppressive government
------
Sorry Darby, but the 2nd Amendment itself contradicts this claim.

"A well regulated militia ..."

The Constitution itself mandates that the individual right to bear arms occurs under, not in violent resistance to, a regulatory authority -- i.e. the Constitutionally-instituted system of governance.

In addition, the Constitution explicitly defines violent resistance to the Federal gov't to be a crime:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Darby
25694
Points
Darby 01/12/13 - 04:30 pm
3
0
"The Constitution itself mandates...

....that the individual right to bear arms occurs under, not in violent resistance to, a regulatory authority -- i.e. the Constitutionally-instituted system of governance."

Of course the Constitution does no such thing. This is what I warned that we are up against when I referred to our domestic enemies "chipping" away at the Constitution.

Libs just love to play on that phrase "a well reulated militia" and they have just about worn it out. Scholars over the years have debated it and found it to be ambigous.

On the other hand, I find it telling that you didn't finish the quote. You know, the part that contains absolutely NO ambiguty. Let me do it for you. "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Really odd that you somehow overlooked that. Don't you think?

Must have been an oversight because I'm sure you wouldn't have delibertly decieved anyone. A big government liberal just wouldn't be that misleading.

You can't document any evidence of what you wrote and you and just about everyone else knows it!

harley_52
23390
Points
harley_52 01/12/13 - 04:23 pm
1
0
Supreme Court Decision....

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2–53.

Darby
25694
Points
Darby 01/12/13 - 04:26 pm
3
0
Burninator would have us believe....

"The Constitution itself mandates that the individual right to bear arms occurs under, not in violent resistance to, a regulatory authority -- i.e. the Constitutionally-instituted system of governance."

Sounds like he's saying that we can resist the government only if the government gives us permission first. ISN'T THAT SPECIAL!

As a matter of fact, the Constitution was ratfied in 1787, the culmination of an effort that began with the Declaration of Independance in which we are told that violent resistance to a duly established government was at times "in the course of human events" not only necessary, but required to assure freedom.

harley_52
23390
Points
harley_52 01/12/13 - 04:33 pm
3
0
Burninater Would Have Us Believe....

...just about everything the radical left espouses.

Nonetheless, I'm sure he's a fine fellow.

Darby
25694
Points
Darby 01/12/13 - 04:45 pm
3
0
I'll say it again...

Congressional amendments can and have been repealed. Please, let's have some brave liberal congressman or senator propose the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

That would end all the rancor once and for all and at the same time, stop all the back-door assaults and end-runs against gun rights. Because then, with it's repeal, we wouldn't have any gun rights. I'm willing to go that route and take that chance.

While I'm waiting for your response, I'm gonna drop off for a while and go online to order a 30 round magazine for my SKS. I'm thinking that one should be enough.

TTFN

burninater
9583
Points
burninater 01/12/13 - 05:14 pm
0
1
On the other hand, I find it

On the other hand, I find it telling that you didn't finish the quote. You know, the part that contains absolutely NO ambiguty. Let me do it for you. "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Really odd that you somehow overlooked that. Don't you think?
-------
Darby, I didn't finish the quote because it would be absurdly ridiculous to think that you or anyone debating this point didn't know the rest of it, don't you think?

I wasn't addressing the right to bear arms. It is explicitly stated in the 2nd Amendment. It's not a debatable point. I was addressing the fact that the idea that the Constitution is designed to allow violent overthrow of the Constitutional government is so specifically refuted by the Constitution that it is a patently absurd claim.

Your quote here shows how ridiculous the idea is:

"Sounds like he's saying that we can resist the government only if the government gives us permission first. ISN'T THAT SPECIAL!"

Considering that the Constitution defies such an act as the high crime of TREASON, you're right ... I am saying that. The Constitution explicitly states that violent resistance to the government is a Constitutional CRIME.

I know it makes people feel better to thumbs it down, or claim that quoting the text of the Constitution makes someone a radical leftist (that wasn't you, Darby), but guess what? No amount of negativity or denial will change the fact that what you think the Constitution was crafted to allow -- violent resistance to the Constitutional authority -- IS SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY DEFINED AS CRIMINAL BY THE CONSTITUTION.

harley_52
23390
Points
harley_52 01/12/13 - 05:18 pm
2
0
Burninater...

You LOVE beating a dead horse.

The issue you're attempting to resurrect has long ago been decided by the Supreme Court. See my post at 3:23 PM above.

Obviously, you don't like it, but you'll not be able to change it by posting on here.

It's a done deal.

Little Lamb
46022
Points
Little Lamb 01/12/13 - 05:25 pm
3
0
Treason

Treason has to be put into context. History is written by the victors. Those American revolutionists were treasonous while they were fighting the Crown. But when they prevailed victorious, they became patriots. The same would be true if our current United States government sent armed troops to invade our cities and take our weapons. Those who utilized armed resistance would be branded traitors by the news media. The final history would be written by whomever prevailed.

Ya don't need no stinkin’ permission to fight.

harley_52
23390
Points
harley_52 01/12/13 - 05:40 pm
2
0
" The final history would be written by whomever prevailed."

Excellent point, LL.

"History" is largely a subjective undertaking. Take any event and attempt to determine what "really" happened. It's usually an exercise in futility. How "history" views something is usually a function of the prejudices and the agenda of the historian.

The American left is particularly prolific in rewriting history to promote its agenda. You can watch it at work here on these very boards, though it's overly generous to consider these folks historians.

The Crusades is the most glaring example I can think of off the top of my head.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Many black colleges struggling

Although Paine has struggled with its own failures over the past several years, HBCUs across the nation are dealing with some of the same troubles that are threatening their missions and existence.
Search Augusta jobs