Gun Control and Freedom

                The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is the simple fact that citizens of any country lose freedom when their nation practices gun control.  Liberals and Progressives in our nation and in the counsels of the United Nations desire to disarm Americans in order to control us.  Gun control is not about controlling guns; it is about controlling citizens.

                Our Founders understood the importance of guns in the hands of common citizens.  This is the reason why they wrote the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  This amendment reads:  "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."

Noah Webster, one of our Founders, stated:  "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 band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."  (An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787)

Bob Costas, a sports announcer, found it necessary in early December to discuss his perceived need for gun control.    While discussing the murder/suicide of Kansas City player, Jovan Belcher, Costas appeared to call for stricter gun control measures.  He indicated that there was no need for professional football players to be carrying guns.  Costas continued to defend his rant about gun control because he is a liberal and believes that the common citizen is not capable of owning and using guns responsibly.

Switzerland seems to be the model for why citizens need to be armed, and Stephen P. Halbrook wrote an interesting article entitled "Guns, Crime, and the Swiss" to explain the connection between guns and freedom.  (Holbrook also wrote a book entitled Target Switzerland:  Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II.)

Holbrook began his article, "Back in 1994, when the U.S. Congress was debating whether to ban `assault weapons,' a talk show host asked Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, a sponsor of the ban, whether guns cause crime.  The host noted that, in Switzerland, all males are issued assault rifles for their militia service and are required to keep them at home, yet little crime exists there.  Bradley responded:  `My guess is - Swiss are pretty dull - so my guess is that probably didn't happen.'

"Actually, for those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf, Switzerland is anything but `dull.'  By car or by train, you see shooting ranges all over the country, but only a few golf courses.  If there is a Schuetzenfest in town, you will find rifles slung on hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and young, walking, biking, and taking the tram with rifles over the shoulder, to and from the range.  They stroll right past the police station and no one bats an eye (in the U.S. a SWAT Team might do you in).

"Tourists - especially those from Japan, where guns are banned to all but the police - think it's a revolution.  But shooting is really just the national sport, although it has the deadly serious function of being the backbone of the national defense.

"Although there is more per capita firepower in Switzerland than any place in the world, it is one of the safest places to be.  To the delight of Americans who support the right to keep and bear arms, Switzerland is the proof in the pudding of the argument that guns don't cause crime."

Holbrook continued his article by quoting statistics from the UN International Study on Firearm Regulation about the 1994 homicide rate in various nations.  "The UN Study omits Switzerland from its comparative analysis.  The Swiss example contradicts the Study's hypothesis that a high incidence of firearm ownership correlates with high violent crime."  He then included some statistics from Swiss records.  "Sometimes, the data sounds too good to be true.  In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva.  In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned."

While the United States and other nations have experienced school shootings, Switzerland has experienced zero attacks in spite of the fact that guns are available to students.  "At all major shooting matches, bicycles aplenty are parked outside.  Inside the firing shelter the competitors pay 12-year-olds tips to keep score.  The 16-year-olds shoot rifles along with men and women of all ages."

Halyard reported that Prof. Marshal Clinard wrote in "Cities with Little Crime:  `Even in the largest Swiss cities crime is not a major problem.'"  "The low crime rate is even more remarkable in that the criminal justice system is relatively lenient."

According to Halyard our Founders were well aware of the record in Switzerland, and the "Swiss influence was partly responsible for the adoption of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution….

"When the first U.S. Congress met and turned to defense measures in 1791, Representative Jackson argues:  `The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords.'  A law was passed requiring every able-bodied citizen to provide himself with a firearm and enroll in the militia, and it stayed on the books for over a century."  I wonder if the law was struck from the books when the Progressive movement began in the early 1900s! 

Holbrook continued his article:  "While the United States is victimized by embarrassing episodes of criminal degradation, the twentieth-century European experience suggests that tyrannical governments kill far more than private criminals.  In 1933, the Nazis seized power via massive search-and-seizure operations for firearms against `Communists,' i.e., all political opponents.  In 1938, in preparation for and during the Night of the Broken Glass, they disarmed the Jews.  And when the Nazis occupied Europe in 1939-41, they proclaimed the death penalty for any person who failed to surrender all firearms within 24 hours.

"There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home.  The Nazi invasion plans themselves state that, because of the Swiss gun ownership and shooting skills, that country would be difficult to conquer and occupy.  The European countries occupied by the Nazis usually had strict gun controls before the war, and their registration lists facilitated confiscation of firearms and, in many cases, execution of their owners.

"By being able to keep out of both world wars in part through the dissuasive factor of an armed populace, Switzerland demonstrates that possession of firearms by civilians may help prevent large numbers of deaths and even genocide.  The Holocaust never came to Switzerland, the Jewish population of which was armed just like their fellow citizens…."

The European examples show that registration of guns precedes confiscation of weapons.  This is apparently one reason why Liberals and Progressives want to “register” our guns. 

Do you retain any wonder about why the Progressives want gun control?  I do not.  I believe that we should learn from the Swiss example; I believe it is important for us to have private gun ownership because armed citizens are free citizens.  No individual or group can overcome us when we have the capability to defend ourselves.  Obviously, many other Americans agree with me because gun sales have soared in the past four years and continue to increase.  Americans know that an armed citizenry is necessary to maintain liberty.  Gun control is not about controlling crime; it is about controlling citizens!