Welcome back. I have taken a little longer on this part. I really wanted to know more about how gun control has worked for the countries, (and our own states with gun control). This is what I found out. It appears that the first steps taken by dictators is to seize full control is to: Suppress the basic freedoms. RELIGION, SPEECH, and RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. We have already experienced attempt at all of these. The Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to MAKE/ALTER, (however you want to put it), the intent of our CONSTITUTION. Their job is to interpret not make up their own laws. An example of this would be if I were talking to a person from say Japan. I say, “Hello, it is nice to meet you”. The interpreter tells this person from Japan “Hello, why don’t you go back to Japan.” So you can see how the erosion of our basic rights IS happening. I remember Soviet Premier Kruschev saying, “We will bury you”. He gave no time line. Nor method of carrying this threat out. Back to the Supreme Court Justices. RE; the FREEDOM OF RELIGION. The intent of this RIGHT was very simple. The government shall not dictate any one religion. Example would be Pennsylvania founded by Quakers. Pennsylvania is not to make it a condition of Pennsylvania you must be Quaker to reside there. Or Utah to require you to be Mormon to live there. But as you have seen they have taken the whole concept and mis-construed it to say I don’t have the right to openly practice my faith in a government facility. They did this which changed one word of the this Amendment. They effectively changed “…FREEDOM OF RELIGION, to read. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. See how one word can change the whole intent. No they didn’t physically change the word, just the way they interpret it. New York and especially New York City, Illinois (with Chicago). Washington D.C. and all the states with strict “gun control laws”, have a higher crime rate than states with laxer gun control laws. The United Kingdom confiscated all guns, (from law abiding citizens, according to the reports I have heard), has seen a 40% rise in gun related crimes. One English police officer said. “…Our job is harder. Only the criminals have guns… and they are more willing to use them.” One example I have heard of is about a farmer named Tony Martin. The story goes like this. Two men, actually a man and a teenager, broke into his rural home. Fred Barras, a 16 year old criminal had 29 convictions. Brendan Feraon, a 30 year old criminal, had 34 convictions. Fred Barras was fatally wounded. The farmer was sentenced to life in prison for murder. (The charge has been reduced to manslaughter, so he will eventually be set free). (Really? Life in prison for defending himself and his property?) Brendan Feraon, also was shot, and was sentenced to 3 years, but only served 18 months. Now Fearon is using taxpayer money to sue farmer, Martin for damages. Break into a home, then sue the victim for damages. It happens here. What is wrong with this picture? A criminal breaks into your home and then sues you for damage. Criminal definitely has an edge here. Authorities say Martin should not have used his gun, he should have yelled for help. He lived on a farm with no nearby neighbors. Who would have heard his cries for help at 2 in the morning. Those of us who live in towns and cities, Do you think someone in the house next door would hear you, or if they did; would they come to help you, or even call the police. Odds are the answer is NO! Australia, banned guns in 1996. The result there is as follows. ARMED ROBBERY, up 69%. ASSAULTS WITH GUNS, up 28%. GUN MURDERS, up 19%. HOME INVASIONS up 21%. So, instead of a decrease in crime we see an overall increase, of 137% The town of Kennesaw Georgia, actually passed a law requiring every household to have a gun. They immediately saw a drastic DROP in gun related crime. I don’t think I would like being told I had to own a gun, but I understand this law is not strictly enforced. But for the most part criminals will not risk being confronted with someone with a gun An unknown is just how much crime goes unreported. If there is no loss, or anything, (NO FOUL, NO HARM). No report. My conclusion regarding gun control is I AM AGAINST IT! Like (it seems is the majority of US citizens). I feel there should be some sort of control. But I really have no answer. The gun control I am against is the one which wants to take THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS away. The gun control to keep GUNS or any WEAPON out of the hands of CRIMINALS. That is the big problem. Law abiding citizens will obey laws. Criminals have no such regard for the Law. There will always be a black market. (A criminal element.) Criminals do not care where or how they get anything they want. For example, on the black market, a gun which normally sells for $600.oo may fetch upwards of $1500.oo. Where will the law breakers get that kind of money? Unlike you or me, and save up the money. They will steal it from the unarmed citizen. They will sell dope to your kids. Or they may even kill to get a gun. The police aren’t even exempt. They will still have guns. Simply walk up to one as a normal citizen, take a knife and stab or slit his throat. Now he has a gun and some ammunition. That is how dangerous the situation could get. One gun in the wrong hands, by this means, makes it easier to get more guns. A criminal will really have the… Continue reading GUN CONTROL: IS IT NEEDED? PART 3
