The right to bear arms is necessary in order to form a well regulated militia. The citizens of a militia must first have their weapons before they can come together to form a militia.
The right to bear arms is not for hunting, rather it is for a free people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Thomas Jefferson said that a free people should be an armed people, government is a necessary evil, and it is only the natural order of things for government to get bigger and liberties to shrink.

“GUN VIOLENCE YOU SAY?”

by Vincent B. Thomas

“Gun Violence you say? Gun violence?” That implies that guns are violent as if they go out and commit gun crimes. I believe the term should be “gun related violence” because people, not guns, for one reasons or another, have motives which motivate them to use guns as problem solving tools. If guns did not exits another tool would be used. If we could “magically” get rid of all of the guns people would probably run over one another with automobiles. Would we then call it “automobile violence” and outlaw automobiles? No, of course not! We should look at what motivates people to kill each other with guns and other tools as well.

Some experts say that the lucrative price of drugs results in enormous drug profits which motivates users to commit crimes, often using guns, in order to get money for drugs. These drug profits also motivate drug dealers to kill one another over drug sales territories or “turf” and other drug related business disputes as well. Legal business disputes are settled in courts of law and illegal business disputes are settled with guns, tools of the trade. These enormous drug profits also result in the bribing and corrupting of government officials in the USA and countries around the world like Colombia and Russia. These enormous profits lure law enforcement officials into illegal acts, corrupting them as well. Destabilization of governments like Russia, which has weapons of mass destruction, could result in these weapons being sold to terrorists who could use the existing drug pipelines to smuggle the weapons into the USA. This facilitation of terrorism is a serious threat to national security.

If it is the lucrative drug profits that motivate these crimes and threatens national security then maybe, we should eliminate that which causes the lucrative profits? After all, drugs like marijuana (cannabis) for example, do not sprout out of the ground worth thousands of dollars. Drugs like Cannabis, Opium, and many others have existed through out history and never, as far as I know, have drugs, other than alcohol, been so profitable and motivated such crime.

So what causes drugs to be so profitable? Well, lets look at alcohol for example. Many of us like to have a beer after work. If a beer drinker (consumer/user), who was physically and physiologically addicted to alcohol, couldn’t go to the store to buy his or her beer because the stores were all closed due to prohibition, then he or she would most likely search for another source. And, if another person said that he or she could get beer for the consumer, the consumer would have to pay that person (the dealer) for his or her time and labor as well as the beer its self. This would inflate the price of beer. If the dealer were risking imprisonment due to a federal prohibition of alcohol, then the act would have to be worth the risk so he or she would charge more, further inflating the price.

Most average citizens would not think of dealing a prohibited substance but everyone has their price. Desperate people in desperate situations, like those in poor neighborhoods, projects, and Indian reservations across the nation, are especially vulnerable to temptation. Survival and feeding one’s family is worth the risk regardless of the consequences. The risk of imprisonment would run up the price of beer enormously, if prohibited. Since the stores would be closed, the supply would be limited while the demand for beer would still exist and in some instances continue to grow, further driving the prices upward. Desperate, addicted users would offer even higher prices for beer effectively bidding on the limited supply. The demand for beer would exceed the supply.

When the Demand exceeds the Supply, inflation occurs. Prices go up even higher. Illegal shipments would be confiscated by the government, further limiting the supply, driving up the prices further and further each and every time the seizures occur, until the lucrative beer profits to be made result in other illegal (black-market) sources. When several sources are available (supply meets demand), competition occurs and prices come down. Simple economics, don’t you think? Prohibition inflates prices resulting in lucrative profits for those who illegally supply the demand. A black market or illegal market can not exist without prohibition. Someone might say that it is prohibition that employs organized criminals since the lucrative drug money that pays and finances the organized criminals, is a direct result of prohibition.

Although alcohol and tobacco both attribute to or result in thousands of death each year, a prohibition on these physically and physiologically addictive substances will not occur for several reasons. One reason is that Alcohol prohibition of the early 1900s taught us some valuable lessons. One lesson in particular is that limiting the supply using prohibition while the demand still exists, causes the demand to exceed the supply. This creates inflated prices, which results in an illegal “black market”.

The alcohol prohibition black market of the early 1900s was run by organized criminal gangs or “gangsters”. These gangsters used violence to settle their business disputes and collect the lucrative profits. The more money and resources that we put into limiting the Supply of alcohol, the more we fueled the black market and the gangsters by creating price inflation which resulted in higher profits. These gangsters destabilized our government by bribing, black mailing, and threatening to kill government officials. Gang wars with automatic weapons filled the streets and nation with violence. Another reason, many argue, is that the tobacco and alcohol industries are too powerful to be stopped because they lobby Congress with contributions.

Another serious “gun related”, preventable problem is access to guns by children. Many ordinary citizens across the nation fear for the safety of themselves and their families, largely due to drug related crime, like home invasions, burglaries, theft, etc., so they buy and keep guns in their homes. In the case of a home invasion, the perpetrators usually have guns and home owners know that they will not have time to get their guns out of a gun safe or get the trigger lock off, so they keep guns easily accessible, which often results in access to guns by children.

Also, drug dealers, protecting their lucrative drug property and themselves from those who would take their drugs, keep guns accessible, which also results in access to guns by children. Just recently, a six year old boy gained access to a gun in a crack house, took it to school, and shot a six year old girl. A crack house and organized criminals employed and funded by profits resulting from prohibition it’s self.

Some children gain access to guns through the drug black market. Once established the black market and organized criminals diversify into other illegal businesses, like weapons smuggling and sales. The existence of the black market and its sales of weapons make it possible for convicted felons to access guns as well. Licensing, registration, and eventually confiscation of the guns of law-abiding citizens will not effect the criminals who will not license, register or turn in their guns.

Gun control has not worked in England or Australia. The citizens were disarmed and now only the criminals have guns. Statistics have proven that in towns where citizens are permitted to carry concealed weapons, crime goes down. I’ll bet that gun control activists will not put a sign on their front door of their house which reads “This is a Gun-Free home”, because criminals would be more likely to invade a home which is gun-free. Guns are deterrents to crime. As long as the prohibition black market is in existence and being fueled by the war on drugs, supplying guns to anyone with $money$, felons and children alike, gun control will not take guns out of the hands of criminals or children! And as long as organized criminal gangs and addicts are sealing and robbing there will be thefts of guns from law-abiding citizens.

One of the Million Mom March advocates for gun control announced that gun control will stop violent crime by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, children, and those who have a mentally imbalance. Licensing and registration will not effect criminals or children who buy guns on the black market or steal licensed and registered guns from the law abiding. I do believe that there are compromises that can be made on both sides in order to reduce violent “gun related” crime.

Reducing the number or cheap or “Junk guns” being manufactured as a result of Prohibition causing the demand (criminals employed by prohibition and in need of a cheap gun “tool” to protect their lucrative drugs, profits, and themselves from rivals).
Gun buy-back programs will get rid of unwanted or unused guns so that there is less threat of a child finding a long forgotten gun but unfortunately use tax dollars to buy old unwanted guns from dealers.
Gunlocks on all new and used gun sales, but remember people won’t use them if they are in danger.
Gun locks available “free of charge” to the public for those who already possess guns.
Education of “all” citizens on gun safety staring early in child development to teach young children to stay away from guns and to notify an adult immediately should they encounter a gun. High school students, as young adults, could be taught gun safety so that all citizens are educated. Education is prevention! Ignorance is deadly!
A three minute instant back ground check prior to gun purchases would prevent felons from buying guns legally, and would not put gun shows, which are usually 2 day events, out of business. Nor would this prevent you from purchasing a gun if your life were in danger. The police aren’t going to hang around and protect you. They can’t be everywhere. However, the second amendment of the Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed! And this would be an infringement. Many argue that the smallest infringement is the beginning of the slippery slope leading to loss of our second amendment right to bear arms.
One other deterrent that would, if enforced, reduce crime is to prosecute those felons who attempt to purchase guns using the laws that already exist!
Last but not least, end drug prohibition there by eliminating both drug crime, which usually involves guns as tools of the trade, and access to guns through the prohibition black market. We have been waging a war not on drugs, but drug using “citizens” for over 30 years, and the problem has grown to epidemic proportions. Eliminating Prohibition would eliminate the lucrative profits that motivate the drug-related crimes that cause people to arm themselves. Before the Harrison Act of 1914, the beginning of drug prohibition, there was a small drug problem. Nearly one century later, we don’t have drug problems, we have wide spread epidemics to include heroine, cocaine, crack, meth-amphetamine, and now new drugs like ecstasy. Imitation or fake ecstasy, pills sold as ecstasy because of the lucrative profits that can be made, are resulting in deaths. Black market are unregulated and uncontrolled and do more damage than drugs ever would if legalized and regulated like tobacco and alcohol. We don’t see gangs fighting over alcohol or tobacco but we would if they were prohibited. Also, there have always been loaded guns in homes but children have never been so violent that they would take and use the guns. Is it just a coincidence that only a few decades ago, before the War on Drugs introduced violence into our society, school shootings did not happen? Other than during alcohol prohibition gang violence did not exist for the most part. And now, gangs are everywhere. Violent environments produce violent children.
Thank you.

VincentBThomas