4um: 2008 CANDIDATES: CONSTITUENT GUN RIGHTS ACTUALLY MEAN ALL CITIZEN RIGHTS

Title: 2008 CANDIDATES: CONSTITUENT GUN RIGHTS ACTUALLY MEAN ALL CITIZEN RIGHTS
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/Longenecker/john8.htm
Published: Apr 23, 2008
Author: John Longenecker and Howard Nemerov
Post Date: 2008-04-23 19:47:22 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 169
Comments: 10

We could say that we are discussing Gun Rights, but what we are really elaborating is the concept of all liberty in this country.

In various essays, co-author John Longenecker has written that the second amendment is an indicator of the health of all other rights in this country. In essays, co-author Howard Nemerov has discredited many claims of the gun control movement as misleading, wildly emotional, off-topic, or outright wrong. In general, in a time when the armed citizen is becoming a nationwide topic for guns on campus, newsbreaks of armed citizens interrupting a violent crime, and with a gun ban case now before the Supreme Court [D.C. v. Heller], the subject is conspicuous by its absence among the 2008 Presidential Candidates. In fact, among the remaining three Presidential candidates, only Barack Obama has spoken on the armed citizen, and he is for gun control. Of course, what the candidates are really ducking is many, many citizen rights married to the armed citizen, including personal safety, citizen oversight of officials, and specific citizen authority to refuse dependency on official agencies as gun control eliminates.

Brokered Dependency is the new commerce of the new millennium. Independence is its cure. Hiding citizen authority is essential to the growth of Dependency in America.

A refresher may be necessary for 2008 candidates in making the Liberty – Armed Citizen connection to the new millennium as a terribly important subject always. We remember that the Founding Fathers defeated abuse of powers in our War For Independence. To ensure abuses of power would never happen again in the new republic, the Founders declared the citizen as supreme authority and declared government to be servant of the citizenry, and never the other way around. Further, to ensure this would always be so, the Framing-era thinking declared that this citizen authority must be backed by lethal force, always, and that this force shall remain in the hands of the individual, always. It is for this reason that there can be no such thing as sensible gun laws. It would be purely to regulate (undermine) the force which backs citizen authority without ever touching crime: this is an exquisite example of the rhetoric and boondoggles foreseen by the founders. You can’t have the servants determining what force the supreme authority of the country has.

It must always be this way, or America would not be a just nation of laws, much less a nation of self-rule. Citizens, not government, then, have the monopoly on force, including concealed carry of handguns, open carry of handguns in several states, authority we grant to officials such as police and not the other way around, citizen oversight of officials, citizen authority for citizen arrest, and civilian control of the military.

Meanwhile, many officials running for office forget the nature of this relationship between servant and citizen, and many voters do not think of the subject in terms of personal authority, choice and oversight of officials. Too many officials believe that the topic of guns is forgotten, is ill-bred and in bad taste somehow, and forget that citizen authority is always important to a constituent who has oversight of them with genuine concerns of safe streets. Again, the topic is not guns, it is self-rule and the armed citizen is integral in fighting crime. Excluding the citizen is the formula for dependency on agencies.

Regardless of political persuasion, it would be unwise for any candidate to support gun control:

Hygens Labidou, a Black self-employed roofing contractor in Florida, certainly needed citizen authority when two white men, one of them out on Federal probation, initiated a racially-motivated attack, attempting to drag Mr. Labidou from his truck so that they could stab him with a knife. Mr. Labidou successfully defended himself with his licensed concealed carry handgun. The police were not, nor should they have been expected to be, immediately available to protect Mr. Labidou. Nor are they legally obligated to protect violent crime victims like Mr. Labidou, as the Supreme Court has consistently ruled. [As in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 2005 and before.] This case is even more interesting because it was not so long ago that southern state governments enacted Black Codes and Jim Crow laws to strip Blacks of their civil and political rights. Certainly, more gun control laws would not have helped Mr. Labidou save his own life, and to claim otherwise is disingenuous at best.

On safe streets, we have seen what doing nothing until police arrive can do. We have seen what dependency can do. Kids die. Adults die. Our kids die in schools, in shopping malls, nearly everywhere. All recent public mass murders, save one where an armed private citizen in church with her own handgun kept the body count amazingly low by herself disabling the shooter, took place where legally-concealed firearms were outlawed, making them a risk-free shooting gallery for criminals.

History shows that civilian disarmament is often a prelude to not only a government monopoly on lethal force, but also the use of that force against the very people government is supposed to protect. Here is a partial list of countries that, in the 20th century, disarmed their populace and proceeded with government-sponsored mass murder, alleging crimes and treason: the People’s Republic of China (76.7 million murdered); Soviet Union (61.9 million); Nazi Germany (21 million); Cambodia (2 million); and Turkey (1.9 million). All told, an estimated 262 million people were killed by their governments in the 20th Century alone. Gun control works…for the person holding the gun.

In this country, the armed citizen stands in the way of big government. Americans have seen what the armed citizen can do instead of waiting for police – namely stopping the slaughter by employing both superior force and one’s legal authority to act without getting permission. It also serves to interrupt and de-escalate lesser violence more than 2.5 million times a year.

The best-kept secret of the gun control movement has always been that the citizen doesn’t need permission to stop a crime in progress. It is this kind of information which is obfuscated by the anti-gun movement and which is being ignored by 2008 candidates as part of an otherwise serious-minded approach to fighting violence.

The armed citizen is a built-in safeguard in this republic, a safeguard which must be respected, it must be taught and protected if this nation is to remain a republic, and a free republic at that. Every candidate must want this. Every candidate must enunciate this before the election.

Both co-authors Longenecker and Nemerov encourage Libertarians and Conservatives to register to vote, to get out the Vote, and to get out and vote. Only then can the 2008 candidates appreciate this bloc as a constituency not of gun owners apart from other constituents, but of constituents with a reasonable expectation for the serious-minded approach to crime.

When 2008 candidates promise to reduce big government, opposing dependency on government is one of the best places to start, and when opposing dependency as a foe of American Liberty, opposing gun control and supporting citizen oversight is one of the best places to start. Gun control obfuscates the citizen’s authority to act when facing grave danger, it limits one’s choices, it punishes self-defense, and it compels dependency on officials by the exclusion of the citizen. Dependency in America is a whole industry now, and gun control’s formula of dependency is cloned into many other aspects of our society, including education, marriage, disaster management, workplace and elsewhere.

The 2008 candidates need to make the connection of so-called gun rights to the totality of all rights and the public service loyalty they promise. For, without a respect for the authority of the citizen, their campaign promises actually mean nothing for lack of understanding. How they stand on the armed citizen gives the rest meaning or it does not; this is the truth every candidate must no longer ignore.

How long will 2008 candidates remain silent on the issue? And what will the new President-elect do once in office?

Obama's Past Offers Ammo for Critics

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama may have a lot of explaining to do.

He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on.

With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn't have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes.

Obama - who filed papers this week creating an exploratory committee to seek the 2008 Democratic nomination - may also find himself fielding questions about his actions outside public office, from his acknowledgment of cocaine use in his youth to a more recent land purchase from a political supporter who is facing charges in an unrelated kickback scheme involving investment firms seeking state business.

Obama was known in the Illinois Capitol as a consistently liberal senator who reflected the views of voters in his Chicago district. He helped reform the state death penalty system and create tax breaks for the poor while developing a reputation as someone who would work with critics to build consensus.

He had a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives.

One vote that especially riled abortion opponents involved restrictions on a type of abortion where the fetus sometimes survives, occasionally for hours. The restrictions, which never became law, included requiring the presence of a second doctor to care for the fetus.

"Everyone's going to use this and pound him over the head with it," said Daniel McConchie, vice president and chief of staff for Americans United for Life.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said voters will be able to judge distorted accounts of his votes against his legislative career in general.

"I don't doubt that if you take a series of votes and twist them and kind of squint, you can write a narrative the way you want to write it," Gibbs said. "I think what people understand is that (what matters) is taking the full measure of his career and the full measure of his legislative efforts."

Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide.

Obama - who joined several other Democrats in voting "present" in 2001 and "no" the next year - argued the legislation was worded in a way that unconstitutionally threatened a woman's right to abortion by defining the fetus as a child.

"It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute," Obama said in the Senate's debate in March 2001.

During his 2004 run for U.S. Senate, Obama said he supported similar federal legislation that included language clarifying that the measure did not interfere with abortion rights.

Such hot-button issues were the exception in a legislative career that focused more on building consensus to improve the justice system and aid the poor.

Gibbs noted Obama's leadership on legislation requiring police to videotape interrogations in murder cases. It started out as a controversial idea but ended up passing the Senate unanimously.

Allies and opponents alike say he listened to those who disagreed, cooperated with Republicans and incorporated other people's suggestions for improving legislation.

"He was looked upon by members of both parties as someone whose view we listened carefully to," said Republican state Sen. Kirk Dillard from Hinsdale, Ill.

Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.

He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.

Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves.

Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law.

"It's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment come election time," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "It will certainly be talked about. You can take that to the bank."

On the other hand, Obama parted company with gun control advocates when he backed a measure to let retired police officers and military police carry concealed weapons.

Obama occasionally supported higher taxes, joining other Democrats in pushing to raise more than 300 taxes and fees on businesses in 2004 to help solve a budget deficit. The increases passed the Senate 30-28.

That's one reason Illinois business groups gave Obama a low rating, while labor groups praised him. But even Obama's allies say he refused to become a rubber stamp for their legislation.

"He always wants to understand an issue and think it through," said Roberta Lynch, deputy director for Council 31 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "You have to make your case no matter who you are."

For six years, Obama served in a Republican-controlled Senate, so he and fellow Democrats only got a fraction of their bills signed into law.

During his last two years, Democrats controlled the chamber and he was the go-to guy on a variety of issues. He helped pass legislation overhauling Illinois' troubled capital punishment system and was a key figure in requiring a massive statewide study of traffic stops to look for signs of racial profiling. Although police groups opposed the legislation, they say Obama listened to their concerns and accepted some of their suggestions to improve the bill.

Even when he was in the political minority, Obama sometimes played a critical role. He helped write one of the rare ethics laws in a state known for government corruption and worked on welfare reform with Republicans.

He sponsored legislation to bar job and housing discrimination against gays, and he helped create a state version of the earned income tax credit for the poor. Obama also led efforts to reject federal rules that would have put workers' overtime checks in jeopardy.

As far as I'm concerned, we the people do have a monopoly on force. The jackboots should never have been allowed to have even .38 handguns, never mind M4s and MP5s.

Drill the militia, and call them out in instances of rioting, and gather posses to serve warrants.