We in this nation are supposed to be a unified group of people made up of INDIVIDUALS. Because we are individuals not subject to the rule of the majority, nor of the government, our rights as God’s creatures are unalienable, and cannot be legislated against. It matters not what the most may think, nor what the minority government may legislate.

We are free by the design of our maker, not of government nor of neighbors expressing otherwise. I care not about those who would rather live in servitude than fight for the freedom many millions of us hold dear. They bask in complacency and should not be a threat to my freedom.

But, there are those who either do not think, or do not comprehend simple English, that try to affect what is not theirs to affect - unalienable rights. These people are a different story and are at the present time the most serious threat to freedom in that they are doing exactly as the federal government wants concerning the most important amendment protecting ALL rights of The People.

I refer to the right to keep and bear arms. If it were not a right of the individual, why was the 2nd Amendment added to the Constitution along with the other nine clauses in the “Bill of Rights?”

If not necessary to document this right as God-given, would not the clauses of Article 1, Section 8, referring to the clauses of military power given Congress have sufficed for our protection? First, let us briefly consider the myth.

George Mason (during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution - 1788) had this to say: “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

And, from Samuel Adams during Massachusett’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788): “...The said Constitution be never construed ...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, Richard Henry Lee stated it this way: “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves ... To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms...”.

And, Thomas Jefferson: “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in their government.”

And, in the same line of thought, James Madison in The Federalist 46 (1788), had this to say: “Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation.”

Now, there are those who try to re-write the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is not difficult to understand. It states: “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.” (My emphasis)

Thus, those who framed and ratified the Constitution and its amendments didn’t misunderstand nor read what wasn't there. They knew the absolute necessity of a free State (meaning the state of being free) depended on the whole of the people being armed and defined the ‘militia’ as such.

And, yet, there are those who try to re-write the Constitution. Mark Pitcavage of the Ohio State University’s History Department, posted in 1995 a historical overview of the U.S. Militia and stated an “armed populace” is a myth.

Well, to Pitcavage and those who think (using the term very, very loosely) like him, I believe the framer’s of the Constitution, not some person trying to create their own little myths based on misinterpretations of a few of the greatest men known in the battle for freedom.

Now, we are getting to the meat of the current controversy concerning the people’s rights vs the government’s bogus war against crime. In its attempts to remove firearms from citizens, the US Government attempts to blame crime on free ownership and bearing of arms. Let's examine this.

In 1775, well in advance of extreme government intrusion on rights, Thomas Paine, had this to say in “Thoughts on Defensive War”: “Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property ... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”(My emphasis)

Then, John Adams, in regards to personal self-defense: “Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense.” Note: He said “...at individual discretion ...”, not at the discretion of any government authority.

Cesare Beccaria, an Italian born aristocrat, formed a society with two friends called the “Academy of Fists” which was “...dedicated to waging relentless war against economic disorder, bureaucratic petty tyranny, religious narrow-mindedness, and intellectual pedantry (pretension - had to look up ‘pedantry’).”

Beccaria wrote “On Crimes and Punishments” (1764), a treatise widely accepted, including by Katherine the Great, Maria Theresa of Austria-Hungary, and quoted by Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams.

The treatise has been printed in many languages and influenced world wide establishment of and reforming of the existing penal system. The treatise is influential to the degree that Beccaria is known as the Father of Classical Criminal Theory.

This GREAT only published work by Beccaria also influenced the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights. In the treatise, Beccaria wrote:

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage them to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

So, I have to ask - Are organizations such as Million Mom March (MMM - an active gun control group) misled by conjecture and/or intentionally ignoring facts with the intent of manipulating otherwise sane, intelligent people into joining their organizations? This is the basis for the government's so-called "war against crime" and the development of anti-gun people - safety will increase as firearms become more controlled.

MY CONTENTION IS THAT THIS REASONING IS AS FALSE (or just simply ignorant) AS SAYING THE SUN RISES IN THE WEST.

To determine who is right, we turn to facts, not those printed by the government or its media puppets but the facts from reporting law enforcement agencies to the Department of Justice. These EXACT figures are available in The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports which reports the incidents of crime in numbers, NOT in percentages of increases or decreases which can be quite misleading and easily manipulated.

In testing my premise, I used Washington, the District of Columbia, since it has the most stringent controls on firearms. Plus, it also has the most armed body guards and law enforcement organizations (over 3600 officers on the Metro PD for a population of just over 500,000, and, of course, many other armed government agencies, including military troops at the ready). I compared D.C.'s figures to the crime facts in a state without concealed carry, Missouri (my state), and Vermont, which allows carrying a firearm as long as the intent isn’t to commit a crime.

In other words, the continuum from being nearly within the Constitution (Vermont), partially observing the 2nd Amendment (Missouri), to not paying any attention to the Constitution (District of Columbia).

Here are the basics of the District of Columbia’s laws on firearms. No handgun may be possessed unless it was registered by 1977. Many rifles and pistols are defined, quite wrongly, as machine guns and are prohibited. Firearms kept at a business may be kept operable but firearms kept at home must be disassembled and are unusable for self-protection.

Thus, firearms for self-protection by law-abiding citizens are effectively done away with. This is completely contrary to the Constitution but - one must remember the Constitution is essentially an agreement the States made to incorporate the US Government (the District of Columbia) to carry out specific duties FOR the States. Within its jurisdiction, including the District of Columbia, possessions, and federal property, the US Government does not have to answer to the Constitution concerning the 2nd Amendment. This has been upheld by the District of Columbia’s Court of Appeals.

Are the stricter laws in D.C. effective? Let’s look at rapes first (due to MMM using emotions rather than facts to mislead people across the nation. (Note: Figures are per 100,000 of population and rounded to the nearest whole number.)

District of Columbia___1994 - Rapes - 44 ____1998 - Rapes - 36

Missouri____________1994 - Rapes - 37 ____1998 - Rapes - 27

Vermont_____________ 1994 - Rapes - 28____1998 - Rapes - 24