What's the Future of 2nd Amendment?

James H. Lilley

The United States Constitution - Second Amendment - The Right to bear Arms - Ratified December 15, 1791. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Violent crime has been a part of human society since the beginning of time when Cain murdered his brother, Abel. The first murder, known to mankind, was an act committed of envy. The story of Cain and Abel is part of Christianity, Islam and Judaism and appears in Genesis 4:1-16 and the Qur'an 5: 26-32. But never has violent crime, its cause and search for a solution, been so debated as it is today. One topic dominates, and has dominated violent crime debates for years. Guns, and a citizen's right to own them.

To try and see the future of America and the gun control debate, the best place to begin the search is at the top with our president. According to www.gunbanobama.com," Barack Obama will be the most anti-gun president in American history." His voting record, political associations and long standing positions make that clear. The following statements are attributed to Mr. Obama:

"Do you support state legislation to ... ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" Answer, "Yes." (Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire. September 9, 1996)

"I'm consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry." (Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004)

"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers lobby." (The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama, 2006)

Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sports shooting. (United States Senate, vote #217, S. 397, July 29, 2005)

Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense. (Illinois Senate, SB 2165, vote 20, March 25, 2004)

In his only two votes on confirming Supreme Court nominees, Obama voted against two of the five justices (Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito) who later affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms in the case of the District of Columbia v. Heller.

President Barack Obama's choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder, signals his true anti-gun agenda. As the nation's top law enforcement officer he will not have the rights and interests of gun owners in mind. Holder, Janet Reno and others from the Clinton Department of Justice co-signed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia versus Heller. That brief was filed in support of the District's ban on all handguns, and the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home.

The argument stated that the Second Amendment is a "collective right" rather than an individual right. Continuing with Mr. Obama's nominations/appointments, the White House Chief of Staff, former Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel and former New York Senator and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton are anti-gun.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a recent trip to Mexico, which is currently besieged by a violent drug war. She went on record saying that America shares blame for the Mexican drug wars because of its demand for drugs and supply of weapons. Here, Mr. Obama agreed with her, saying he wanted the United States to do more to stem the flow of guns and cash from illegal drug sales from flowing into Mexico.

This seems like, as Americans, we are being asked to shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for Mexico's problems. The majority of the U. S. population is not making whatever contributions are coming from this side of the border, be it money or guns. Furthermore, I don't believe the United States of America is the only contributor to Mexico in guns and money. If we look to the southern borders of Mexico, I think we will also find a large quantity of guns and money traveling up from the south.

Therefore, America should not stand alone as the bastard that destroyed Mexico. My country is not the root of the world's evils, though it seems that our own leaders and elected officials are doing their very best to make it so by concurring with those who call us "The Great Satan."

Behind these confessions to the world that we are sinners who breed violence, death and drug addiction, there looms a very large rat. This rat is not singular, but it is the many that wish to enact laws that would strangle those legally entitled to own guns. They will employ whatever measures, no matter how underhanded, to achieve their goal of disarming America.

They will attempt to bury their anti-gun legislation deep within other bills, hoping to pass a law through deceitful tactics, and then cheer their victory. In that respect, every gun owner and voter in America should ask, "How many of our elected Senators and Congressmen read, in their entirety, the bills placed before them?" I would say it is a safe bet that very few read these bills cover to cover.

Thus, it is a reasonable assumption that a bill could be signed into law, because our elected officials failed to do the job we sent them to Washington to do-represent our interests.

To go on looking at the anti-gun ownership lobby, Congressman Bobby Rush (D) of Illinois, in January, introduced the Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (H.R. 45). The bill states the intent of the legislation is "to provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchases of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes." Just what does "for other purposes" mean?

There is a list referred to as "Obama's Gun Ban List" that has been published, but not by the mainstream media. It can be found on the Internet and it is quite extensive. So much so, that if passed, citizens of America would be lucky to have the right to own a slingshot. Will stricter gun laws, or forbidding ownership of firearms, significantly reduce violent crime in the United States? My answer to these questions is an emphatic, NO.

How many more gun laws can we enact in America? There are more than enough laws on the books already. The problem has been, and remains the enforcement of these abundant rules. And, keep in mind, that enforcement includes the courts and penal system as well as officers on the street.

The men and women on the beat are doing their job, arresting violators for illegal possession of firearms, and assaults and murders with guns. The breakdown begins after the arrest. Some suspects are released immediately on little or, sometimes, no bond whatsoever. Next comes pre-trail agreements, which often include outrageous plea bargains and lenient sentences, and the offenders are sent back to our streets to commit the same crimes over and over.

Those who are sentenced to prison are often paroled early, or have their sentences commuted by governors who are feeling "warm and fuzzy" during the Christmas season. Therefore, mandating more laws won't help in any way in addressing the problem. Those holding political office, commuting sentences, and the judges and prosecutors who are rendering forgiving sentences, and putting ridiculous plea bargains on the table should be remembered at election time. Voting these people out of office will send a much clearer message, than attempting to pass more gun laws.

Several years ago the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a study regarding gun control laws in America. A review of the nation's gun control laws, including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons, found no proof that they reduce firearms violence.

The task force from the CDC reviewed 51 published studies regarding the effectiveness of eight forms of gun control laws. The laws included bans on specific firearms and/or ammunition, procedures barring felons from purchasing guns, mandatory waiting periods and firearm registration. Naturally, the gun control advocates demanded further study.

If everyone in America took the time to review the existing gun laws and their effect on the population as a whole, they would find that gun control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. When will Obama and our other elected officials understand that gun laws, no matter how strict, have no effect whatsoever on our criminal population?

The next step, of course, is forbidding ownership and/or possession of guns. This too is not the answer. Australia has already passed laws, which forbid ownership and possession of firearms. When the law was passed, it cost the taxpayers $500 million to have legally owned weapons confiscated and destroyed. So, the government was quite pleased that they had triumphantly disarmed the citizens of Australia.

To demonstrate how successful this law is in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, they have a war brewing between rival motorcycle gangs. The cause of this impending war-a series of drive-by shootings. But how can such a thing happen in a country that has "successfully" taken guns off the streets by forbidding ownership?

With over 85 million gun owners in America, passing legislation that would, in essence, bar law-abiding citizens from owning or possessing firearms would fail, and fail miserably. I don't believe the gun owners of America would go quietly into the night like whimpering, beaten puppies. If President Obama wants to see the revolution or civil war that some have predicted, such a law would, in all likelihood, ignite it.

The real crime problem in America stems from our ever-continuing revolving door criminal justice system. I don't need to elaborate on this-go check the statistics for yourself and you'll find what I have found. Failure after failure allows violent criminals back on to our streets to murder, rape, and rob again and again. So, what do we do? Our legislators, anti-gun advocates and "crime experts" scream for more laws.

Our immigration system is also at fault in America's rise in violent crime. Yet, our President and the "Queen in Waiting," Nancy Pelosi, want amnesty for everyone here in this country illegally. Why? Nothing more than bleeding heart liberalism. Barbaric street gangs are a large part of those illegally in America.

We can't open the borders, spread the welcome mat and say, "have a nice day" to these thugs. But, that's what we have done. Then when the cries fill the air about violent crime, someone screams for more gun control. How about some control over the flow of those entering our nation illegally from every direction possible? Oh, but that would probably cause great harm to their fragile psyche.

I can speak firsthand regarding the problems with the Hispanic street gangs. In October 2007, I was confronted by six young thugs that were intent on beating, robbing and carjacking me. What they didn't expect was to encounter a man who had a legal right to carry a concealed firearm, and was doing so at the time of the confrontation. The .40 caliber, which I drew from my holster, sure leveled the playing field in a hurry-and it wasn't even necessary to aim it at them. I simply drew it, held it by my side and told them to back the **** off. They shouted a sting of obscenities and threats, but none of them dared to move against me. But, I was fortunate.

A young lady in Texas, who had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, was not as fortunate. She witnessed the murder of her parents in a restaurant after a man walked in and began randomly shooting patrons. She testified before the legislature how much she regretted not having her firearm the day of the shooting. She said that if the weapon had been in her purse instead of her car, she could have possibly prevented some of the deaths. Of course, there will be the anti-gun advocates who will say it would have been a greater danger if she had been armed and engaged the suspect.

If she could have saved just one life by taking out the suspect, her right to carry a concealed weapon would have been justified. The site for her videotaped testimony is listed at the end of this article. That tape should be mandatory viewing for everyone elected official in America. But I'm sure they would rather look the other way and attend to their own agenda.

There is another video I recently viewed, which was a satirical advertisement from the criminals of America. Briefly, it gives the point of view of the criminal, saying how they put their lives on the line everyday when committing crime. It goes on to say they support very strict gun laws and would feel much better if legislation was passed to disarm every citizen in America.

The man on the tape said this would make his life and the lives of others in the "criminal profession" much safer, because they wouldn't have to fear for their lives when committing rape or other crimes. Satire with a great deal of truth-if you take away guns from America, you certainly won't disarm the criminals.

The Last Line of Defense

For those who still have but a single purpose in life, the disarming of America-in the event that you succeed in your pursuit, let me ask you to reflect on a very sobering possibility. That being terrorist attacks across our country launched by the terror cells that have been implanted on our soil for years. Not the same as those of September 11, 2001, but armed assaults on our schools, churches, places of business and shopping malls. Imagine hundreds of coordinated attacks all over America and the chaos that is sure to follow.

Who will defend our soil? If you say the police and our military, I suggest that you go for a brain scan. I strongly doubt that they will be able to fend off these attacks without assistance. But, who can help if you succeed in taking away the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms? Does the future of America and the rights of its citizens' to be free, depend on the right of American's to keep and bear arms?