2nd Amendment

The Founders put “the right to bear arms” in the Bill of Rights because they believed in persons’ rights to defend themselves. In the 1700s this required guns and it still does. Those in the US who need them most are in our poorest neighborhoods. Today, guns are a deterrent to crime. Criminals don’t know what their potential victims may have at their disposal to defend themselves.

There are currently laws on the books that deter citizens from shooting trespassing criminals, who can sue their would-be victims and those nullifying laws need to be reviewed. They are interfering with our right to protect ourselves and our property. So far, I believe it’s ok to shoot criminals in your house, but not in your yard as they attempt to escape, but are still on your property. This gives criminals more incentive to break into your house, so they can sue you. We should not allow lawyers to serve in our legislatures.

There are current laws on the books that exempt law enforcement from law suits. They are entitled to shoot criminals who do not “stop”, before they shoot. No-Knock Warrants allow them to break down your door and shoot you before they realize that they have the wrong house. You will also note that the only thing you can sue a government agency for is race discrimination.

The Founders also intended citizens to have guns to protect themselves from their own government, when that government becomes too abusive. There is also the deterrent from invasion when most citizens have guns. That is the case for not banning assault rifles.

Very few families include “hunters”. This could be considered a “subculture”. The hunter problem is completely different from the 80 year old Black grandmother who lives alone in a bad neighborhood.  But neither should have their guns taken away. 

The bottom line on the gun problem is to make sure nut-balls don’t have access to guns. Here we count on parents, family, neighbors and friends of nut-balls to enforce a family-based gun restriction policy for nut-balls.  You also don’t want them to have access to explosives or even automobiles. We have laws on the books that protect privacy. But that assumes you don’t break any laws and aren’t a nut-bag.

Schools need to be hardened effectively to be able to control entry. I think we know how to do this and it’s up to the schools to make this investment.  If they don’t, I would expect students to transfer to online school and learn from home. Hopefully, they would also escape the political indoctrination camp schools have become. The best education is self-education augmented by tutors. Students can learn everything they need to learn and more by looking up topics on the internet.

There is folly in the notion that schools need trained, uniformed police officers posted at all schools in the event that something happens.  It makes more sense to arm teachers who volunteer to carry guns as a deterrent to school shooters. Spending money to hardening a reception area to control entry and electronic locks would be more cost effective than paying police officers to just “be there”. They are trained to catch criminals after they have already committed the crime. Here we are attempting to prevent the crime.

If we can’t reduce government spending enough to escape a national bankruptcy like Venezuela, we need to keep our assault rifles.

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands, which have connected them with another…” – Declaration of Independence 1776.. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader