A conversation bewtween two REAL pro 2A street cops from 2ampd.net…… Ever wander where REAL cops who work the street stand on private gun ownership? Can cops protect you? Listen and learn!
3 parts: Part 1 is a response from Texas LEO Bill C. to anti gun journalist Jeff Zachary
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My response to Jeff Zachary:
——————————————————————————–

—– Original Message —–
From: Bill Craik
To: edit@
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 1:29 AM
Subject: Do Ordinary Citizens Need To Own Guns? A REPLY:

I read your article with some interest. My replies and comments are
interspersed below (for clarity).

Do Ordinary Citizens Need to Own Guns?
by Jeff Zachary

With the Lake County Chiefs of Police Association holding its second
annual “Gun Buyback” program on Dec. 7, the question is bound to come up
whether ordinary law abiding citizens even need to own guns.

Of course, most people seem to agree that the Constitution of the United
States grants us the right to keep and bear arms.

But that was written over 200 years ago in a different space and time.

BILL: Yes Sir, it was written over 200 years ago; but at that same time
the same Founding Fathers also wrote about Freedom of the Press,
Freedom of Speech, Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizures,
the Right to a Trial by a Jury of One’s Peers, the Right to Confront One’s
Accuser, the Right of the People to Peaceably Assemble, the Right of the
People to Address Grievances with the Government, the Right Against
having Troops Quartered in the People’s Homes, the Right that No Person
Shall be Deprived of Their Liberty or Property Without Due Process, the
Right Against Cruel & Unusual Punishment, etc.

Do we value these “Rights” any less because they were written so long ago?

However, with the exception of the Volstead Act (commonly known as
“Prohibition”) – which was subsequently repealed (and the possession and
manufacture of potable alcohol was never guaranteed by the Constitution
or The Bill of Rights) – it seems that every Constitutional Amendment has
only served to further amplify or grant more “rights” to the People – not
less.
For example, Universal Suffrage gave women the Right to Vote and the
Voting Rights Act only served to broaden rights – not reduce them.

Therefore, I do not believe that there is any legal precedent to remove any
“rights” or “guaranteed protections” granted under the Constitution or The
Bill of Rights. To do so would only serve as a stepping-stone and give legal
precedent to gradually eroding and removing other “Rights” guaranteed
to “We, the People…” by our Founding Fathers and invalidate the total
concept of our Constitutional Republic.

Citizens of this great land of ours began and won the American Revolution
over two hundred years ago because they were abused by the (British) gov-
ernment, and wanted basic guarantees from the government that the govern-
ment was not willing to grant. I would shudder to think what might happen
if our basic Constitution and it’s attendant Bill of Rights were thus eroded
to the point that a second such change of government were necessary.

Some police officers have quoted statistics to me that say that a total of 39
percent of all households in America have guns in them. Twenty four percent
of the households have handguns.
I suppose that would depend on where those statistics came from and if they
were in the least, accurate. I, too have heard that “…one home in every
four has at least one firearm in it…”.

According to their statistics, for every time a gun is used in a home in a
legally justified shooting, there are 22 criminal, unintentional and suicide
related shootings.

Actually, as I am sure that you are aware, “statistics” can be used to
support almost anything that someone wants to use them to support.
The mere lumping together of the statement that, “…there are 22
criminal, unintentional and suicide related shootings.” is such an
example of what I have just said.

For example: if, of those 22 shootings; 19 were criminal, one was
unintentional and two were suicides – it would hardly indicate that
unintentional and suicides by firearms were the major problem. The
major problem would definitely be “criminal use” of firearms.

As a footnote, I might also add, that a person bent on suicide will
not be deterred in the least from their intended act of self-destruction
simply because a firearm is not present of handy. Surely we will not
“ban” tall bridges or buildings simply because people choose to jump
off of them and kill themselves. People can be very creative when it
comes to their own self-destruction.

>Statistically a gun in the home triples the risk >of a homicide being
>committed and increases the risk of a suicide >five times.

BILL: Again, I would question where these ‘statistics’ come from… .

So back to the question: Do ordinary law abiding citizens need to own guns?
Somehow it seems to me that the question being posed here is not
so much, “Do ordinary, law abiding citizens need to own guns?”;
(Emphasis added.) but rather the question being posed here is:
“Should ordinary, law abiding citizens be allowed to own guns?”

The truth is I don’t know.

I do know that when my son was born over ten years ago I sold my Smith and
Wesson snub nose 38 handgun because it just seemed dangerous to have it
around.

Bill: Now that was a personal – and in your opinion – a sensible, solution to
a personal “family/home safety issue”. I personally applaud what you
did – divesting your home of what your foresaw as a potential danger.
I doubt that any serious supporter of our 2nd Amendment Rights would
disagree with your answer.

>Then last year I sold my 22-caliber rifle to the >Lake County Police Chiefs
so
>I could get the inside story on the buyback >program.

Bill: Now that’s a creative and unique approach, wish I could have read that
article.

>And now all I have left is a 12-gauge shotgun >with a trigger lock on it put
>away in my attic.

>years ago and I could never
>get it out of the attic in time, take the >trigger lock off, load it, and use

>it if there was an emergency that would justify >it.

>So I guess I’ll probably sell it at the “Gun >Buyback” this year.

BILL: Those ‘gun buy-backs’ are a magnificent waste of tax-payer money,
but that is an entire other discussion.

>What do you think readers? Do ordinary law >abiding citizens need to own
>firearms?

BILL:Again, I don’t think the question here is “Do…..(we) need to own
firearms?”

The “need” that any particular individual may feel or perceive as a
“need” to own a firearm rests solely with that individual, and as a
“Right” guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

While some may feel that they “need” a firearm for protection, others
may “need” a firearm for their hobbies of hunting or competitive
shooting activities.

Personally, as a Texas Peace Officer for almost 27 years, I have
“needed” a firearm for my employment duties. I also feel the “need”
for a firearm for personal protection at home – since many of the
criminals I have sent to prison will not remain there forever,
and will return to this area when they are released. As you might
imagine – not all of them like me very much. Further, I also hunt
and shoot competitively, so different firearms are “needed” (required)
for those activities.

Above all, I also enjoy firearms, and I collect them as a hobby. No,
perhaps I don’t “need” these, but to me at least, it’s a lot more interesting
than stamp, coin or movie-poster collecting.

I do not think that the “need” of an ordinary, law abiding citizen to own
a firearm is or even should be, an “issue”. Currently it is a “Right” – and
a “Right” not to be taken lightly.

You, yourself, have chosen not to avail yourself of your “Right” – for your
own reasons, and I support your “right” to not have a firearm in your home.
However, just because some people do not wish to avail themselves of their
“right” to keep and posses a firearm, does not mean that others should not
have the same “right” to choose to keep and posses one.

I’ll put this another way:

Selma, Alabama – 1963: Did black Americans have the “right” to NOT sit at
the “back of the bus?” Yes – they had the “right” to sit anywhere on that
bus they wanted to. It’s called “civil rights” And those “rights” were
reinforced
by the Civil Rights Act of that year.

That was a positive Act that further defined and amplified the basic rights
that all citizens have under our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

We who believe in the 2nd Amendment are not asking for special favors; we
are simply asking to NOT BE FORCED TO SIT AT THE BACK OF THE BUS and
give up our “Rights” that were and are guaranteed to us by the Founding
Fathers
who left us the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

See you around the neighborhood

Most respectfully yours,

Willis R. Craik