By Richard Rossi, Delaware County SCOPE
I realize that Independence Day has passed by the time you received this issue of the Firing Lines. I hope you took a few minutes out of all the celebrations to ‘thank’ our first Patriots who fought for our rights - Liberty, Freedom and the establishment of our Republic and, of course, our veterans as well as the men and women currently serving in our armed forces. That being said, I would first like to talk about our GUN RIGHTS as Law-abiding American Citizens.
As we all know, our "Bill of Rights" is the first ten amendments to the Constitution (ratified December 15, 1791). Our Founding Fathers clearly intended these to be Rights of all American Citizens and not to be privileges granted by our government to the people. The concept of the "right to keep and bear arms" predates our Constitution. It is an unalienable right of self preservation that dates back to the creation of man. It is man’s nature to protect his life from death and danger.
The 2nd Amendment is a right that our citizens may choose whether or not to exercise. If a citizen does not wish to own a firearm, by choice, that is his/her right. However, no one can say that we cannot freely exercise this right if we choose. In our effort to protect and defend gun rights, does stating that we are pro-gun establish a barrier right at the start of our conversations with the anti-gun movement folks?
People that are anti-gun believe guns are bad and as soon as they hear those words - they are against you. You have lost any opportunity for discussion in the first critical seconds. A better way to start a conversation would be stating “I am ProRights”, followed by “How about you”? If they are anti-rights; then you have the upper hand.
How can anyone not be pro-rights, pro-freedom and pro-self-defense? At this point, the conversation has taken on a completely new twist and it is in your favor. This is exactly what the anti-gun groups and the media have been doing for years. How many times have you heard, "If it saves just one life it is worth it", in connection with so-called “common sense gun laws"?How can you not be for saving lives?
If someone asks about 'Assault Weapons' and asks, “Do you think common citizens should be allowed to own one”? Your first response should be, “What is an assault weapon? Assault is a behavior, not hardware. What are you talking about”? Then you can follow with, “I believe it is appropriate for law-abiding citizens to own common household firearms”.
If someone asks, “Do you believe in Gun Control”. Respond - I am for Crime control, how about you? Undoubtedly, they will respond yes - how can they say no. This opens the door to the use of firearms for legitimate reasons of self-defense by both citizens and the police.
Ask the question, “Who is the First Responder on either workplace violence or any mass-shooting or terror attack”? Better yet, ask, “Who is the ‘First Responder’ in a confrontation”? The typical response will involve the police or some law enforcement person. Wrong answer. The First Responders ARE THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN THE INITIAL ONSET OF THE INCIDENT. When seconds count between life and death, you and only you are the ones that need to react in self-preservation mode.
Dialing 911 (wishing, hoping and praying a man with a gun arrives to save the day) or waiting for LEO's to arrive may get you killed. This is why 'Gun-Free Zones' are a safe-haven for criminals. They are counting on Law-abiding citizen's being unarmed and they know well that they will be safe to inflict their carnage, free from armed intervention, for the first critical minute or two.
As gun owners and citizens that believe guns save lives, we need to be aware and use the anti-gun movements terms against them. We need to think outside the box. You get the picture.... You will never convince the indoctrinated anti-gun person to see your side of the conversation; however, we need to reach the 'middle of the roaders'. The individuals that are on the fence are the ones we need to reach and convert. They have heard the rhetoric that is being thrown around to make non-gun owners fearful for their lives and the lives of their loved ones.
These are the individuals you, as gun-owners, need to reach and pull into our court. This is where we can make the best possible difference. The anti-gun groups and media will at every instance of a shooting, start their fear agenda campaign again for more “common sense” gun control measures. They will immediately need to move while this is in the minds of law-abiding citizens. What better motivation than fear; facts are not needed. Assault weapon and high capacity magazines will be publicized if a rifle was used as will the need for more gun-free zones and more background checks. ”How did this mentally unstable individual get a gun” will be asked. The need for a 10 round magazine limit will be seen as too many. We need to do more to end the violence and the unneeded deaths of these innocent victims but we need to focus on the ‘root causes’.
Law-abiding citizens do not commit crimes. Criminals do not abide by gun control measures and laws. We need to investigate our criminal justice system, plea bargaining, and our mental health and services departments. Why are criminals on the street? Why are repeat offenders getting reduced sentences and parole? Why are the seriously mentally ill on the streets? Ask any anti-gun individual or group to respond to these questions and they may quickly and automatically switch the emphasis to the weapon rather than the individual responsible for the assault.
Unfortunately, our society has removed individual responsibility and made it society’s responsibility to prevent and be responsible for these actions. There is another issue to be considered, beyond direct intervention with the anti-Second Amendment left. Last month, I came across an article (don't recall the author or the source) that was concerned with the system of 'Checks and Balances' that our founding fathers put in place to prevent abuse by any one branch of government - Executive, legislative or judicial. The concept, in my opinion, was well conceived and relevant.
Our Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The process is politically biased for the most part. Our SC is today composed of members that are biased towards either the Republican or Democratic view points and philosophy. The intent of our Founding Fathers was to insure that our Constitution would be followed and this branch of our government would serve as an ultimate litmus test. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this is no longer true.
Many of the decisions have been biased and are based on unconstitutional grounds. These individuals serve for life and 'We the People' have no say in their appointment or their removal. Should term and age limits be added? Some food for thought... We have seen how Second Amendment issues have played over the past several years. A few cases have reached the SC level with, perhaps, more in the future as lower courts keep infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights.
We know for certain our District Courts, Appeal Courts and many lower courts are biased. We have countless 'gun laws' being imposed all across this country with bias motives and without Constitutional review We may soon be seeing how our safety as a nation is at risk; will the SC stand behind the Presidents sworn oath to keep our nation safe and confirm his Executive Orders as Constitutional? Will politics influence our SC to the point of placing our nation in danger? The answers will be revealed in time.
The only chance for Law-abiding gun owners is to get involved, vote out the 'Gun Grabbers' from every elected office all across this country; from city and town Mayors to your State Senators and every political office in between. If you did not get an opportunity to read the last issue (May/ June) of ‘Firing Lines’; please read the article on JURY DUTY, it concerns ‘JURY NULLIFICATION’. Don't let our original Patriots who fought and died for our independence down. They put everything on the line for our Nation. Ensure that our Rights and Freedoms are enduring and everlasting in their honor. These men and boys - some as young as nine years old and many in their teens, fought and some died for us.
