Gun control is a term that belongs on the range as a parallel term for muzzle control, not in the halls of the legislative bodies.  But with the support of some alleged sportsman’s groups, we get a steady drumbeat of the “need” for gun control.  So let’s pick this thinking apart and see if it has any merit at all for free people living under the American Constitution.

What exactly is freedom?  Let’s look at the root word “free” to understand.  Since it is the law that concerns us, we turn to Blacks Law Dictionary where we discover that free means “Not subject to legal constraint of another”.   “Unconstrained; having power to follow dictates of own will”.   And “freedom” is defined as, “The state of being free; liberty; self determination; absence of restraint; the opposite of slavery”.

Clearly then, to be free, one has the right of self determination without any constraints.  So then, by what legal fiction does any legislative body presume to diminish the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, where it says in clear plain language, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”?   The answer, of course, is not even by legal fiction can such plain language be jettisoned in favor of any constraint on the right to keep and bear arms.  It is clearly an unconstitutional abuse of power to constrain such a fundamental right.

Some folks, even in the shooting sports community cleave to the notion that some violent or potentially violent persons should not be allowed to have a gun.  Think about that for a moment and ask yourselves if those persons should be denied the right to defend themselves if someone seeks to do them injury or even kill them.  If you answer yes, you do not believe in the equal protection of the laws, an important cornerstone of freedom.

Now, of course, we are going to hear, “but preemption is key to prevention”.  Rubbish!   Under American justice, you can have all the evil thoughts you want as long as you do not carry them into execution.  If you do carry them into execution, you are then accountable to the law for the harm you do.  The really sharp gun control advocate is going to then claim that our laws concerning terrorists can’t be constitutional either.  Wrong!  Conspiracy to commit terrorist acts is an exception and really has no bearing on gun control.  This is particularly true when it involves foreign nationals here illegally or even legally because their stated intent to commit terrorist acts and they are conspiring to carry that into execution.  A domestic terrorist acting alone presents a different problem because until he commits that act, there is likely no crime, unless it is an explosive devise violation or a dangerous substance violation such as radioactive or pathogenic substances.

Now why is the right to keep and bear arms so important?  Try self protection as the leading reason, and especially for carrying a concealed firearm.  It is well documented that firearms stop more crimes than there are crimes committed with firearms.  The average time for getting police to respond is so extended that you could be a dead victim long before any police could be there.  Moreover, the true function of the police is to enforce the laws, which translated means investigating and capturing the offender.  So the free and unconstrained person can have a firearm and protect themselves by exercising his self determination to do so.

Finally, we must have a few words about a troubling development in law enforcement.  Beyond the fact that there is never a cop nearby when you need one, there is the reality of competence when you do get one.  The evidence is startling with regard to training and marksmanship skills being deplorable for the vast majority of our officers.  But the problem is far worse because the training is not providing the use of the baton that the older cops learned to use so effectively for disarming and securing deranged persons and drunks without undue harm to them.