When we examine the rights guaranteed us under the Constitution of the United States and specifically those granted to us first under the Bill of Rights, it is important to notice the order in which they occur. Our framers could have placed these Amendments in any order they chose, so why did they place them the way they did. It is actually very simple. The placed the most basic ones, the most important ones and the ones paramount to our very freedoms first. No one can argue that the basic rights guaranteed under the first Amendment are the fundamental rights of any American citizen and that any erosion of these rights is a direct assault upon our freedoms. So it would logically fall that the Amendment they chose to place second was of almost equal value and just as vital to each individual as the first. So why do we not cry out in rage when it is under assault like we do those under the First Amendment?

In examining the Second Amendment it is important to understand the situation the Framers found themselves in that made them to decide that this was the second most important right of any American citizen. It also is prudent to examine what the Second Amendment was meant to guarantee and what it was designed to protect.

Let’s start by examining what had just occurred. The Colonies had just fought a bloody revolution to free themselves from a heavy handed centralized government that was exerting its will over them with no recourse. This freedom was gained at a severe price and was only achieved because they could call upon everyday citizens to arm themselves and fight for their rights. During the framing of the Constitution, the Colonies realized that they could be creating such a government by their own hands that could eventually grow strong enough to enforce its will upon the states by force. The attempted to set several checks and balances within the Constitution itself to address this possibility, but many Colonies were not satisfied that their concerns had been adequately addressed. They never intended the Constitution itself to enumerate the rights of the citizens. It was specifically designed to limit the scope, size and power of the Federal government. However, they were concerned that any rights not explicitly spelled out would risk being ignored if their fears ever came to pass. Therefore, they created the Bill of Rights, a set of ten Amendments to be immediately added to the Constitution which enumerated specific and unquestionable rights to the States and the citizens and specifically stated that all rights not addressed under the Constitution remain the rights of the State or the people. This was to ensure that a strong centralize government could never arise to the level where it could control or deny these basic rights to its people.

Among those rights is the right of every individual to keep and bear arms. The purpose of the second Amendment is clear. There is no ambiguity.

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.

This right was not designed to protect hunters, nor was it meant to protect those who wish to protect themselves. It was meant to protect the rights of the People and their States. This Amendment was created to ensure that the States would remain free and not lose their rights to a powerful central Federal government. This right was designed to protect the liberty of every State and every person in this nation and the document says that is SHALL NOT be infringed.

Some may argue that the militia clause referring to the security of the State has become unnecessary due to the Federal government having a standing army and the states have their National Guards. However, it was these very things that the Second Amendment was design to protect AGAINST. The fear of a Federal government fielding a standing army that could turn its guns on the citizens of this nation is clearly discussed in The Federalist Papers. Even then they realized that the only way to prevent such a thing was to have an armed citizenry ready and willing to stand their ground and defend their rights by force if they must. They knew that the only thing that would ensure that the American people were never subjugated by the Federal government was if they could arm themselves and resist. This is the sole intent and purpose of the Second Amendment, to guarantee your freedoms by ensuring that you are armed and able to fight for them.

In the video I posted a few days earlier the Marine mention a grave and dire assault on your rights taking place right now. One of the bills he mentions was the Blair Holt’s bill, a direct and invasive assault on your Second Amendment rights. This bill, H.R. 45: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 along with the proposed Assault Weapons Ban and Ammunition Coding laws are designed to control, register, track and tax. They will restrict your ability to buy, own, posses, transport and sell a multitude of firearms, ammunition and accessories all currently legal underneath American law. There will be criminal penalties associated with failures to comply with these laws and means of removing your ability to own or posses a firearm at all. As an example, here is the summary for H.R. 45:

Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 – Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.
 
Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.
 
Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.
 
Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.
 
Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.

Does this not appear to be infringing on your right to bear arms by the very entity that the Second Amendment was meant to provide protection from?

I have always been vehemently against any form of registration of any firearm, ammunition or the requirement of a license to own or posses said things. I am accepting of licensing that allows a person to carry in public, either concealed or in plain sight, at the State level, but there should never, under any circumstances whatsoever, be any such requirement for ownership. This only serves as a nationalized means for identifying and controlling the armed populace. Remember, one of the first things the Nazis did when they seized control of Germany was to disarm their populace. How did they know where to find the guns? All Germans were required to register any firearms they owned. Go ask 1940’s Germany how well that worked out for them. This is a direct threat to the liberty and security of every State and every citizen of this nation.

Not to mention that the ONLY people that these laws will affect are the people who already obey the law. This will not reduce violent crimes, but may actually have the opposite effect. A public unable to defend itself will fall prey to the criminals who will ignore this law just as they ignore the laws that make them criminals in the first place. Why do you think it is that almost every single state that has opted for a law allowing their citizens to carry weapons in public has seen a significant decline in violent crimes? Criminals avoid those whom they know will fight back.

This is unacceptable and intolerable. The Federal government has ignored the Constitution for many years but in the last few months we have seen a direct assault on it that is unsurpassed in the history of this nation. From Congress illegally trying to seat delegates from the District of Columbia in the House and Senate, to the push for the ‘Line Item Veto’ that has already been ruled directly unconstitutional by the Supreme Court to the massive assault on Second Amendment rights that is currently underway, this government has shown itself to not only disregard the laws laid out in the Constitution but to actually hold contempt for them in choosing to ignore them at will.

The Federal government has now shown itself to be a domestic enemy to the Constitution of the United States of America by directly attacking its most basic rights, ignoring the limitations set forth therein upon the Federal government, abrogating the rights of its citizens and States and attempting to subvert openly in Congress the laws set forth within the document without the direct consent of the States through the amendment process.

There are those on the left that will assault me; try to tear me down with screams of hatemongering and scare tactics, but I challenge anyone of them to prove to me how we should see these assaults on our rights as anything other than what they are: oppression of a once free people by an overly powerful central government, something we once would fight and die to avoid.

As I stated in my earlier post, I am never one to be an alarmist, but I cannot seem to escape this feeling of a mounting tension in this nation that seems to be building to a deafening crescendo. I offer up a compelling and powerful video posted by a true American patriot.

Hate to say this about my nation, but this man is right on so many levels. Please, watch the video and spread the message. It is time that the people of this nation stand firm and demand the rights guaranteed us under the Constitution of the United States of America. It is time for us to demand that our states follow suit in reclaiming their sovereignty and demand those rights that millions have fought and died for.

Watch this powerful message and if you do not feel stirred within, then I feel shame and pity for you, for you have lost your way and have taken for granted those gifts that our forefathers have bestowed upon you.

God speed and Semper Fidelis.

Hat tip to Texas Fred for posting this powerful video.

It appears that Barack Obama will be able to stay true to his word about not attempting to take our guns. Thanks to some nefarious maneuvering that may not even be necessary to bring about stringent gun control. As a matter of legality, liberals all around the nation will be able to stand up and claim that they would never vote for legislation restricting your right to purchase or own a firearm.

You see, there is legislation snaking its way through various states already that aims to control your ability to buy ammunition for your weapons, but steers clearly away from any restrictions on your weapons. It does neatly tie off the prospect of reloading ammunition or making your own by squarely making this process or the possession of these items illegal.  More can be found at the website of the organization pushing this legislation: Ammunition Accountability

This legislation is being passed off as a protective measure designed to help police identify criminals by serializing ammunition with visible alpha-numeric codes.

Bullet Identification Technology: A modern crime fighting tool
 
Bullet identification technology, known as an ammunition coding technology, has been developed and will provide law enforcement with modern crime fighting tools. Ammunition coding technology assigns a unique code to every round of ammunition manufactured, and by recording sales records, law enforcement personnel will be able to easily trace the ammunition involved in a crime and have an avenue to pursue and solve even the most difficult cases.
 
The unique code is micro-laser engraved on factory-produced ammunition. This laser engraving is etched on both the projectile and the inside of the cartridge casing.
 
Each code will be common to a single box of cartridges and unique from all other ammunition sold. The unique ammunition codes will be tracked and records maintained to identify individual ammunition purchases. The ammunition coding technology will provide a method for law enforcement personnel to trace ammunition purchases and link bullets and cartridge cases found at crime scenes to the initial retail ammunition purchaser.
 
This system will not necessarily prove who pulled the trigger, but it will provide law enforcement with a valuable lead and a starting point to quickly begin their investigations.
 
The design of the ammunition coding technology laser engraving system will allow law enforcement personnel to identify the bullet code in cases where as little as 20% of the bullet base remains intact after recovery. Since bullets are designed to keep the base solid and in its original configuration, the likelihood of ammunition codes remaining legible after recovery is very high. Law enforcement testing has already shown a 99% success rate in identifying the ammunition code after bullet recovery.

Oh, great! Now the government will have a national database designed to track ammunition purchases? Oh that is not the least bit intrusive, is it? Where are all the blithering idiots who were screaming about the NSA filtering through billions of phone numbers sifting for patterns and collecting call metadata from the telecom companies? What next? Are we going to build a database to track everyone who buys a gun related book or one that teaches you how to reload your own ammunition?

What these morons fail to realize is that it is that most crimes are committed by people, who by their very definition, are criminals with no regard for the rule of law. The only people this law will affect are those who legally buy their ammunition and register that purchase. Furthermore, the only way this law will become effective is if every single state in the union passes it or if the Federal government mandates this legislation. Otherwise there will be ‘safe’ states that do not participate in the tracking of the coded ammunition, thereby creating a black market for the trafficking of untracked ammunition out of these states.

These laws will certainly created a black market for uncoded or stolen ammunition and people will quickly realize that crimes involving firearms are being committed with ammunition that is either pre-coded, illegally produced uncoded ammunition or ammunition stolen from innocent law abiding citizens. This will severely reduce the usefulness of this coding process and leave police in the exact same place as they are now with thousands of unsolved cases. There are many current unsolved cases across this nation where the police actually possess the firearm used in the crime, but are still unable to solve the case as the firearm could only be traced to a lawful citizen from whom it was stolen or who initially purchased the weapon, but then later sold it. The ammunition coding will be no different.

This is just another attempt to circumvent your Constitutional right to keep and bear firearms by severely monitoring and controlling their usage. Will we now see a waiting period for the purchase of ammunition? Will there be a limit to how much can be purchased under this new law? Will you be able to legally give or sell your ammunition to another when you no longer need it?

I have not even begun to discuss the $0.05 to $0.10 tax per round associate with the implementation of this process. For those of us who go through a good deal of ammunition that can add up to quite a bit quite quickly.

There is a very simple and very basic element that these morons bent on gun control always seem to forget. The passing of more and more restrictive gun control laws will never solve the problem of crimes committed with firearms because the only people affected by these laws will be those who follow the law in the first place. The criminal element does not give a damn about gun control laws and will inevitably find a way to circumvent any measures designed to prevent his criminal activity. That is after all, why he is a criminal in the first place.

This legislation must be stopped.

UPDATE: More information can be found on the technology at http://www.ammocoding.com/.

Ever since Texas passed it Concealed Handgun License the state has seen a sharp decrease in violent, property and petty crimes.  Now there is an organized movement to expand the right of licensed gun owners on several fronts.  Currently there are two pushes in this state to change the laws surrounding the carrying of weapons.  The first one is targeted at eliminating the restrictions for carrying a weapon on college campuses and the second is an attempt to completely change the Texas Concealed Handgun Licence into an Open Carry one.

The first challenge to the current Texas law has been gaining ground for a quite while and is supported by organizations such as Students for Concealed Carry on Campus(SCCC), a group that is fighting for the rights of students in several states to lawfully carry weapons on to college campuses.  Their most recent action was filing a suit with current and former Colorado University students challenging the university’s ban on weapons. (Press release.)  The strong push from students has prompted the Texas legislature to review the law in the next session beginning in January.  Students in Texas argue that the prohibition of weapons on college campuses creates gun free zones that are easily targeted by the criminal element and by those intending to cause as much harm as possible in desperate acts such as was seen at Virginia Tech last year.  The further argue that by denying them their constitutional right to protect themselves and by failing to provide adequate security for the campuses, the law places them at undue risk.  This argument has found sweeping support among students and apparently increasing support among law makers during the last session.  With the Texas gubernatorial seat facing a clear challenge in the next election, this could easily become a strong campaign issue.  I will be watching the developments on this and reporting on them as they occur.

The second and potentially most impacting challenge to the Texas Concealed Handgun Law, comes in the form of petition to change Texas to an Open Carry state.  Currently, the Texas law requires the possession of a firearm for licensed persons only if the firearm is completely concealed from view.  More and more states are converting to some form of Open Carry status for firearm owners, whether it be licensed such as Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, and Tennessee; or a permissive form of Open Carry such as Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, Virginia, Vermont, and Wyoming.  The movement in Texas is supported by a group known as OpenCarry.org who has begun a petition directed at Governor Rick Perry demanding that the State of Texas recognize the rights of its citizens to carry openly in public.

The petition can be found here: Open Carry of Handguns in Texas

We hold that all citizens who may lawfully purchase a handgun be allowed to carry openly in public in the State of Texas except for those places prohibited by law. We also call for state preemption of all handgun laws concerning open carry in Texas1. Every individual has the right and responsibility to defend their self against unjustified threats of death or serious bodily injury.

2. The Constitution of the United States guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

3. Criminals are not deterred by rules, regulations, and laws forbidding the possession of weapons. A man bent on mass murder will not be stopped by a rule forbidding him to have a gun.

4. It is well known that the requirement to conceal a handgun for the purpose of protecting self, friends, and family can be difficult especially in Texas with our extreme heat since a person will usually have to wear a jacket to properly conceal a handgun and to avoid “printing.”

5. The requirement to conceal a handgun can make it difficult to draw the weapon should the life of the carrier or the life of someone else be in danger.

6. A criminal will not open carry a weapon because he does not want to draw attention to himself. We believe that a citizen openly carrying a handgun lawfully will be a deterrent for crime.

7. Ten states including Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, Virginia, Vermont, and Wyoming all allow open carry of handguns without a license. Twelve states including Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, and Tennessee allow open carry of handguns with a license. In fact, Texas is one of only SIX states in the entire United States that completely bans open carry of handguns.

8. In these states, Open carry is very common and it does not alarm law enforcement or other citizens.

For the foregoing reasons, we residents of the State of Texas affirm and assert that all citizens who may lawfully purchase a handgun be allowed to carry openly in public in the State of Texas except for those places prohibited by law. We also call for state preemption of all handgun laws concerning open carry in Texas. 

There are almost 47,500 signatures on the petition at this time, including mine. There will be several more when I tell my family and friends about this effort. I encourage all of you who belive in the natural, God given right to self-protection and self-preservation and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, to go and sign this petition, but most assuredly those of you who live in the State of Texas need your names on this document.

I will be closely watching this issue as well and reporting here as things develop.

In a shocking move of clarity and constitutional integrity, it appears that the Supreme Court of the United States today decided that they were not the ultimate power in the land. After deciding to ignore precedence and the separation of powers in the detainee decision and trampling on the states right’s by preventing them from executing those who rape children, the SCOTUS decided that they would follow what the constitution actually says for a change.

I wrote about this challenge of the Second Amendment a few months ago. This was the first time that the Second Amendment’s right of an individual to bear firearms had actually been heard before the court and was a pivotal case. The court had the opportunity to affirm that the Second Amendment granted and individual and personal right to possess a firearm and today they did just that. The other choice for them would have been ignore the language of the Constitution and decide that, once again, they knew betters than the founders of our nation. Thankfully this did not happen.

Not an impressive record for the court this month. Three paramount issues have been before them and this is the only one they got right. If I failed to do my job properly 66% of the time, I would be looking for employment in short order. That is unless I worked for the government or possibly the fast food industry, both of which seem to celebrate mediocrity and reward ignorance.

I guess even a liberal leaning activist court can stumble on to the right decision occasionally. I just hope that the bumbling around that they do the other majority of the time will not end up completely destroying this nation. We will see…

Well, I apologize to any of you who could not get to the site yesterday. I performed an upgrade to the site and for some unkown reason, when it transfered to the new hosting platform it lost its mind. Well, actually it lost its DNS tables, but still, you get my drift.

I have now corrected the DNS entries and everyone has access to my opinion once again.

In an update to yesterday’s article:

It seems that Heller has found some favor with the court in his challenge to the District of Columbia’s ban on the ownership of firearms. While no ruling has surfaced as to the legality of the ban, it seems that the general opinion of the court is that the Second Amendment confers a personal right to ownership and possession of firearms, yet that right can be regulated by the state. Just how much regulation can be exercised and if the outright ban of a class of weapons such as the District of Columbia has done goes too far is still in question, but it seems that Heller has won his point with the court regarding a personal right to ownership, at least so far.

Also, something of interest to note. The District of Columbia claims that the ban on handguns was put in place to control crime. Really? Great job guys. DC has one of the highest crime rates in the nation. Their violent crime and murder rates are usually withing the top five of not one of the top two cities in the nation. That just goes to prove that gun free zones are magnets for criminal activity.

For those of you not aware, there is a critical case before the Supreme Court of the United States today. Since 1976 the District of Columbia has held in effect a restriction on the registration of all guns designed to be fired from a single hand. Coupled with the law requiring registration of all firearms owned in the District, this essentially bans all ownership of handguns. When Dick Heller attempted to register his handgun with the District’s local government he was denied and then sued for the right to posses the firearm under the Second Amendment.

Since the onset of the suit, there have been several back and forth decisions, but over all Heller has been winning under the auspice that the Second Amendment confers and individual personal right to own a firearm. The District of Columbia has argued that the preface of the Second Amendment only allows for ownership of a firearm if you are serving in a militia of a state and does not convey a personal right to ownership.

Let us examine the text of the Amendment in question for a moment and discuss its origins:

“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.”

The Amendment essentially has two main clauses and therein lies the debate. The first clause states that a well regulated Militia is a necessity for the security of a free State. Many gun control advocates would have you believe that this clause is meant to protect the States right to have a Militia or modern National Guard. However there are some inconsistencies in this theory as well as the only ruling by the Supreme Court to address this issue based on the first clause of the Amendment.

In 1939 during United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that a citizen had no expected right to possess a double barreled sawed off shotgun because this clause was meant to provide citizens the ability to form a militia for the common defense and since no such style of weapon was in the normal military inventory and could not be determined to have the ability a benefit to the common defense. Therefore it became accepted practice that the government could regulate the type of weapons people were allowed to posses. However, if you apply this logic today and say that a person should be limited to the type of weapons which would be used by a State’s militia, then you would open up the restrictions on automatic weapons and other type of Class C firearms to be owned by anyone. This also presents the problem that those serving in the militia today, our National Guard, do not own their own weapons and cannot posses them at anytime other than when they are serving. This seems to directly fly in the face of the second clause of the Amendment which is what conveys the right of ownership in most peoples minds.

The second clause, when taken by itself, states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This seems to be a fairly straight forward statement and is what most gun rights supporters hope the Supreme Court will hold with. If taken literally, this means that the Federal government cannot infringe (or to violate, encroach upon or trespass upon) the right of the people to keep and bear arms in anyway such as restriction of type or class. This sort of interpretation would open up even farther the ownership of all types of weapons now currently restricted.

Also, there are questions as to the meaning of ‘the people’ in the second half of the Amendment. Everywhere else throughout the Bill of Right when the words ‘the people’ are used it has been ruled to convey a direct personal and individual right. However, the anti-gun lobby would have you believe that in the Second, and only in the Second Amendment, it does not convey an individual right but a collective right to the State. It should be noted that the Framers were intelligent individuals who distinguished very clearly between the Federal and State governments and the people themselves. Everywhere else in the document where the Framers intended something to be a State’s right, they address that entity as the States, not the people. The State is even mentioned in the Second Amendment. If it were to be conferred as a State’s right, why not have the Amendment say that the right of the States to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Also of note, the Bill of Rights is called such because the first ten Amendments deal with conveying personal rights to the citizens of the United States. Not to the states themselves.

Now the question becomes, “So what did the founders intend?” A friend of mine once asked me if I thought the Framers would have phrased the Second Amendment the way they had if they could have imagined the type of weapons we have today. I asked her if she imagined that they would have phrased the First Amendment differently if they had ever imagined that a cross in a jar of urine would be considered art and protected under the Free Speech clause. She conceded the point.

We can find hints of what the Framers intended in several sources. One source is to consider the state of the world when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. The colonist had just won their freedom from an oppressive centralized government through a bloody rebellion. One of the things that they hoped to ensure with the Constitution was that such a rebellion would never again be needed. However, they knew well enough the dangers of a strong central government and it was hotly debated among the individual states. This one aspect was probably the chief fear of most of the ratifying states, therefore they needed a way to make sure that a strong central government could never oppress the people of the United States (how disappointed they would be in us today). In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison discuss the dangers of having a standing Federal army during peace time and how to counter that threat to liberty. Among the things that Hamilton wrote are the beliefs that is would be unreasonable and an extreme strain on the States to assume everyone could serve in the militia, but that an armed populace ready to stand in defense of its rights was the only guarantee of liberty in the face of national military force. It is also important to consider that the very liberty that had been won for the colonies was not won by trained militia or military men. It was won by farmers, rancher, shop keepers and masons who with their own personal weapons responded to the call of liberty and freedom. The men who fought so hard for liberty would not immediately take away the very thing that allowed them to secure that liberty and allowed them to be penning the documents that would found the greatest nation on the earth. They knew, as well they should have, that had the Federal government demanded surrender of the very arms that had won this nation her freedom, there would have been another immediate call to arms to prevent a strong centralized government from replacing the one they just threw off.

The right of the People shall not be infringed. The right of the People to protect themselves, their families and their homes shall not be tread upon. The right of the People to preserve their freedom shall not be encroached. The right of the People to rise against oppression and arm themselves to preserve liberty against an oppressive government bore this country from servitude to greatness and it will not be sacrificed.

Once again we are faced with the tragedy of an armed nutcase and a gun free zone. At the Northern Illinois University campus last Friday six students were killed and nineteen more injured by a crazed former student off of his medication.

The gunman was armed to the teeth with three pistols: a Glock 9mm, a Sig Saur 9mm and a Hi-Point .380, plus a 12 gauge shotgun. Even though campus security locked down the facility and arrived in under a minute, it was too late for six of the students in the path of this insanity.

They say we learned our lessons from the Virginia Tech shootings last year that we need to lock down the campus and notify students at the first sign of something like this. Apparently Northern Illinois faculty did a excellent job of this, but are these really the lessons we should have learned?

All of these weapons were purchased legally through certified dealers who ran background checks on Stephen P. Kazmierczak and made him wait the five day waiting period before he could take possession of the weapons. They had no clue that that he had stopped taking his medication nor did they know he was being treated for anything. Police have not even released the specifics on what he was taking or what he was being treated for during their investigation. Laws are still in place that prevent gun dealers from accessing medical information which could determine the suitability for someone to purchase a firearm. These same laws still protect the shooter, even in death, from public disclosure of medical conditions that may help shed some light on the events that took place last Friday.

Another lesson we failed to learn is that gun free zones are death traps when a determined sociopath decides to kill innocent people. We subject our children to a greater danger that we ourselves are subject to by placing them in situations that can offer no protection against someone bent on a murderous rampage. Why is it that these mass shootings so often happen in areas where the shooter is confident they will meet no resistance such schools, churches and workplaces? It is obvious that campus security is not enough, even with such a stellar response time from the Northern Illinois police force, it was too late. Armed faculty who legally have the right to possess firearms under state law and who have been trained in the use of deadly force and conflict resolution would severely curtail these incidences. If students cannot depend on the safety and protection of the schools, then for those students who can legally posses and carry firearms, we should not deny them the right to protect themselves on campus.

This is the problem with all gun control legislation: it only will ever control those who choose to obey the law. It will have no effect on a half crazed lunatic who has already committed himself to taking the lives of individuals. The only thing more strict gun control laws will accomplish is ensuring that more innocent people die when tragedies such as this occur.

During a shooting that occurred on Sunday in a small church in Colorado, we can see the difference and armed person can make in what could have been a much worse mass shooting scenario.

On Sunday, December 9th, 2007, Jeanne Assam a 42-year-old former police officer had pulled guard duty at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, CO, when Matthew Murray opened fire. Assam says she said a short prayer and prepared to face the unknown gunman with God’s help. As the 24-year-old Murray strode into the church wielding an assault rifle, Assam opened fire hitting him several times. Even though her shots were not immediately fatal, it did stop the gunman who was armed with an undisclosed type of assault rifle, two pistols and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition. Murray, ready to die according to the anti-Christian manifesto he left behind, apparently took his own life after being critically wounded by Assam’s shots.

How many more would lie dead at the hands of another cowardly psychopath if not for the actions of Jeanne Assam? Four people lie dead, yet many more live thanks to the decisive actions of one armed woman who with the strength of God stood before evil and ended this tragedy.

It makes no difference whether it was an armed security guard or and armed civilian. One person made the difference that save possibly hundreds of lives.

Gun free zones promote this kind of mass killing tragedy. The people who carry out these massacres are cowards who strike out at innocent individuals and gravitate to areas where they know they will not meet resistance. In most states, even ones with concealed carry laws in effect, churches are restricted areas where you are not allowed to carry a weapon. Murray was counting on meeting no resistance and killing as many people as possible. Thank God he was wrong. Thank God that Jeanne Assam was armed and found the courage to stop this man before he killed God knows how many more.

Everyone is aware of the tragedy that occurred yesterday in Omaha, Nebraska as a psychopathic gunman opened fire on innocent shoppers in a packed mall. Eight victims lay dead and several more still fight for their lives while other mourn the loss caused by a depressed maniac in search of fame.

Only a day after the shootings the murmurings of gun control activist are already starting to surface. Apparently, the weapon used in this act of cowardice was an AK-47 assault rifle that he snuck into the mall underneath a hooded sweatshirt. This rifle already has a tainted reputation since it is commonly associated with negative entities and organizations such as communist countries and terror organizations. However, this is primarily because the designer of the weapon, Mikhail Kalashnikov, was Russian and the fact that this is one of the most widely produced and sold assault weapons in the world. The AK-47 has many variants and is generally an extremely rugged and reliable weapon, thus it has been adopted by many countries and organizations. The weapon fires a 7.62mm jacketed round at over 2,300 ft/s with a rate of 600 rds/m and a standard 30 round capacity clip. Why the details of the weapon? To illustrate my main point.

There has been a concerted effort by gun control activists for many years to ban all assault weapons. Weapons which are capable of automatic fire are already illegal, but conversion kits are available to those with enough money and skill to modify the weapon. However, all indications so far are that this was a perfectly legal version of the AK-47. Many gun control advocates claim that banning these weapons would reduce the amount of damage an assailant could cause because of their high velocity and expanded magazines. Yesterday’s incident proves that this is not the case at all.

As we saw during the Virginia Tech shootings last year, a determined sociopath bent on the murder of innocent civilians is not bound by what weapons the choose. A single student wielding two pistols caused triple the cost in human lives than this coward did yesterday. The weapons used at Virginia Tech were a Glock 19 and a Walther P22. The Glock 19 fires a 9mm round at 990 ft/s with a practical rate of 30-50 rds/m and has a 15 round clip. The Walther P22 fires a .22 cal Long Rifle round at 1060 ft/s with a pratical rate of fire similar to the Glock and carrying 10 rounds in its clip.

Now let’s analyze this information:

Which weapons would you think capable of causing the most loss of life in a mass shooting situation? If you guessed the AK-47 assault rifle you would not be alone, but you would be wrong according to the evidence we have from the last two of these horrific incidents. The first two weapons ended the lives of thirty-two Virginia Tech students at the hands of an unstable college student. The latter cause the death of nine innocent shoppers in a mall yesterday.

My point to all of this is very simple. The weapon does not commit or make worse the crime. Two weapons with much less kinetic energy, less velocity, much slower rates of fire and fewer rounds per clip caused over three times the amount damage as the assault rifle used yesterday.

I am sure renewed calls for bans on these weapons will quickly rise to the fore front in the media coverage of this incident, but such bans would change nothing to a depressed, psychopath bent on slaughtering innocents on his way out. The crime is committed by the man holding the weapon and is only limited by his skill and determination. It has absolutely nothing to do with the weapon used.