Bad Decision, Dangerous Precedentby Alan Burkhart
Gun owners and gun owner rights groups across America are rightfully outraged at the recent decision by New Orleans law enforcement officials to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens.
According to city officials, while the crisis spawned by Katrina exists, no one but law enforcement will have guns in New Orleans. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a little something in the United States Constitution that specifically prohibits this sort of thing?
New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass made the following statement to the Washington Post:
"No one will be able to be armed. Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns."
This should be sufficient to thoroughly frighten any American who understands the Constitution and recognizes the vital role legal firearms play in our society. Should this heinous violation of constitutional rights be allowed to set a precedent, Americans could truly be in danger of losing our constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Be glad, my friends, that a Republican presently resides within the White House. Imagine the consequences of this if a left-wing, gun-hating liberal occupied the Oval Office? We'd almost certainly see a push for a federal law mandating that during any "crisis" Americans could have their guns confiscated "for their own safety."
Let's take a quick look at some history...
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
In 1996 the nation of Australia passed a gun ban. Gun owners in Australia were forced by the new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. Here are the results cataloged 12 months later:
Australia-wide, homicides were up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults were up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies were up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!)
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms increased by 300 percent.
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this changed drastically upward in the 12 months following the passage of the gun ban, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There was also a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians were at a loss to explain how and why public safety had decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove conclusively that an armed populace is a safer populace.
Crooks will always have firearms regardless of what laws are passed. It is the height of stupidity to assume that law-breakers who depend upon firearms to ply their grisly trade would simply hand over their guns. All Australia's government did was make things easier for the crooks!
The city of New Orleans has followed Australia's example. It is only a matter of time before innocent lives are lost due to this theft of private property. What will city officials have to say about it when innocent people die? Will they admit making a mistake? Will the MSM point out that confiscating legal firearms is not only unconstitutional, but dangerous to law-abiding citizens?
Obvious answer: No. Of course they won't. If anything the MSM will either ignore the loss of life or doctor the numbers so that the policy looks like a success. Liberals will rub their hands together in glee while they look to find a way to once again pervert the Constitution to justify a federal law allowing any state or city to confiscate firearms. This is a liberal dream come true. For normal folks like you and me, it's a potential nightmare.
If you are unarmed and an armed burglar (trust me, he'll be armed) breaks into your home at 3:00 AM, what will you do? Call 9-11 and hope he doesn't hear you making the call? Will you bravely face his nine-millimeter semi-automatic with a baseball bat? Will you hide under the bed while he helps himself to all your worldly possessions?
Contrast that to the same burglar breaking into my home:
Loud noise
Big hole
Dead burglar
Problem solved
You have the right to use lethal force to defend your home and family against criminals. You also have a moral obligation to do so. In today's crazy world, only the craziest believe that legal firearms are a bad idea. Please contact your congressperson and do your part to see that such a law can never and will never happen where you live. It's only a matter of time before the Socialist Left tries to use the New Orleans incident to further their unholy agenda.
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=8295
