The Veit to Bear Arms

[Pressing-On]

Excellent article!!


The Veit to Bear Arms
By Mike S. Adams
Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Last week, I received numerous requests for a column responding to the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech. I had almost decided against writing one when I read the following letter to the editor in the local Wilmington McTimes:

" On the day of the Virginia Tech massacre, President Bush's spokesperson told the press, "… The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed. …"

In effect, Bush sent this stern message to mass murderers:

We'll make sure that the weapons you need are freely available. Be warned, however, that if you shoot dozens of people before killing yourself, you will have a crime on your police record."

The letter, written by UNC-Wilmington English Professor Richard Veit, says three things: 1. Dick Veit does not like George W. Bush. 2. Dick Veit does not like guns. 3. Dick Veit does not like to make serious comments on very serious subjects.

Since I think there’s a way to prevent tragedies like last week’s shooting at Virginia Tech, I decided to write about this topic with the hope that my good speech will help cancel out Dick Veit’s very bad speech. I suspect that many people on both ends of the political spectrum will agree with at least some things I have to say.

My view on how to alter gun laws to prevent another shooting like the one at Virginia Tech was inspired by a recent change in North Carolina gun laws. Our state decided that individuals who have a concealed carry license (CCW) do not have to obtain a pistol purchase permit in order to obtain a handgun. Instead, we are allowed to buy handguns as long as we have a valid CCW, which must be renewed every five years.

Because there are two ways to buy a handgun in North Carolina (with a CCW or with a one-time pistol purchase permit) there are two types of people who are able to buy guns; 1) Those with a CCW who have been subjected to criminal background checks, have released full medical and psychiatric records, and have taken a firearms safety course. 2) Those who obtained a purchase permit by submitting to a criminal background check, without releasing medical and psychiatric records, and without taking a firearms safety course.

At this point in the column I’m ready to unleash the first three steps in my four-step proposal for preventing mass killings on college campuses. The first two steps will not surprise my readers but the third will:

All states should allow citizens to apply for a CCW.

All states should allow those with a CCW to buy guns without a separate pistol purchase permit.

All states should eliminate pistol purchase permits immediately.

By eliminating pistol purchase permits and allowing only those of us with a CCW to purchase a handgun, there will be no more guns sold legally to those with a history of mental problems who have not yet committed their first crime. And it should be some consolation to the gun control crowd that it takes about 90 days to obtain a CCW in North Carolina. The pistol purchase permit only takes about a week

Under my plan, all legally sold guns will wind up in the hands of psychologically stable non-criminals with at least some formal training in the use of the weapon they have purchased. The liberals should like my plan so far. But they won’t like my fourth step:

4. All states should re-write their gun laws so that CCW holders are allowed to carry concealed weapons on college campuses.

Earlier this semester, a student asked me why the bank located across the street from UNC-Wilmington has been robbed so many times, despite the fact that it is located right across the street from the university. I responded by telling him that it had been robbed so many times because it is located right across the street from the university.

Think about it for a moment. If you want to rob a bank successfully you would be wise to pick a bank across the street from a crowded university campus. After putting your gun in a backpack like most students wear, you could time the robbery so that you are done around the time classes let out. As long you make it across the street after putting your gun in the backpack you can blend together with tens of thousands of students who are also wearing backpacks.

And the best part of it – from the robber’s perspective - is that the college campus is the only large area in town where the armed robber only has to worry about the armed policeman and not the armed citizen. Under my plan, we would change the campus to a place that is more welcoming to the CCW holder than it is to the armed robber.

Our campuses need to be more than just “safe zones” for blacks, feminists, and homosexuals. They need to be zones protected by the gun-safety-educated, psychologically stable, non-criminals in our society.

I hope everyone reading this column will do his civic duty to obtain a CCW and learn how to carry responsibly. There are a lot of thoughtless Richards out there who need us to protect them.

Dr. Mike S. Adams bought his first Sig Sauer firearm just minutes after reading the letters to the editor in the Saturday Wilmington McTimes.

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel: Confessions of a Conservative College Professor.
www.townhall.com

Mr Veit calls for the following:

"By eliminating pistol purchase permits and allowing only those of us with a CCW to purchase a handgun,...."

Mr Veit does not understand the Constitution, nor the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment declares that the "right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed."

First of all, the Second Amendment does not confer any rights or priviledges. It DOES confer a PROHIBITION upon the federal government, forbidding the federal government to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

Secondly, US Constitution Bill of Rights amendments have been hald as applicable to the states. Many if not most states contain language similar or identical to the federal Second Amendment.

Thirdly, a "permit" is just that - PERMISSION. When a governmental entity grants a PERMIT, they grant PERMISSION. A permit or license is permission to do that which, without the permit or license, would be illegal and prohibited. The problem is, the right to keep AND BEAR arms is not prohibited UNLESS a governmental entity "grants permission" to do so.

The people, you and I, already have that right. We had that right before there ever was a Constitution, and we will have that right even if the Constitution disappeared today.

By promoting a permitting scheme, Mr Veit supports the irrational and false theory that the people are FORBIDDEN to keep and bear arms (handguns, in this case) UNLESS and UNTIL the government grants permission on a case by case basis.

Mr Veit's position demands that you and I, the people, do NOT have a right to keep and bear arms, unless the government grants that permission (subject to a fee, of course).

The truth is, unfortunately for MR Veit and the nitwits at the NRA leadership echelon and the rest of the gun control crowd, the truth is that the people already HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACQUIRE AND OWN AND CARRY ARMS.

"Permits" are for people who do NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to do something, and who desire and need government permission.

So, Mr Veit, you can keep your "permits", and I'll keep my RIGHTS.

[Pressing-On]

Great rebuttal, except that I don't think the framers had MK-16's in mind. I do believe that anyone registering for a gun needs to have a background check.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Great rebuttal, except that I don't think the framers had MK-16's in mind. I do believe that anyone registering for a gun needs to have a background check.

I suppose you meant "M-16"...

Actually, they DID mean such things as M-16s.

The recent US Appeals Court in PArker vs DC rules just exactly that - that the Second Amendment's term "arms" means the common military arms carried by the standard infrantry soldier, citing the US Supreme Court's "Miller" decision which affirmed the same.

Which, by the way, means the Second Amendment specifically forbids the government from infringing on our right to keep and bear FULL AUTO "assault rifles" and light machine guns.

(And, yes, you CAN do just that - but the system demands you pay a 200 dollar tax and register the weapon and give up your fingerprints etc etc....)

You said "I do believe that anyone registering for a gun needs to have a background check." To which I say "anyone registering for a gun needs to have a brain check" because registration is an infringement. In fact, the US Congress promised us decades ago there would be NO firearms registration. Supposedly, we do not have any gun registration (except for Class III weapons, such as full auto rifles or pistols, short barreled rifles or shotguns, and destructive devices - like grenades or missiles or artillery cannons).

In reality, though, we DO have a de facto illegal federal gun registry - the NCIC background check.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

I suppose you meant "M-16"...

Actually, they DID mean such things as M-16s.

The recent US Appeals Court in PArker vs DC rules just exactly that - that the Second Amendment's term "arms" means the common military arms carried by the standard infrantry soldier, citing the US Supreme Court's "Miller" decision which affirmed the same.

Which, by the way, means the Second Amendment specifically forbids the government from infringing on our right to keep and bear FULL AUTO "assault rifles" and light machine guns.

(And, yes, you CAN do just that - but the system demands you pay a 200 dollar tax and register the weapon and give up your fingerprints etc etc....)

You said "I do believe that anyone registering for a gun needs to have a background check." To which I say "anyone registering for a gun needs to have a brain check" because registration is an infringement. In fact, the US Congress promised us decades ago there would be NO firearms registration. Supposedly, we do not have any gun registration (except for Class III weapons, such as full auto rifles or pistols, short barreled rifles or shotguns, and destructive devices - like grenades or missiles or artillery cannons).

In reality, though, we DO have a de facto illegal federal gun registry - the NCIC background check.

Actually, I was thinking of the AK-47 and the M-16 and crossed my wires. lol!

Anyway, for any American, yes, we should have the right to bear arms - illegal immigrants - NO! They are running guns through the Mexican Border. A guy at my husband's job used to bring stuff in all the time. I don't know where he is now, but all he'd have to do is ask around.

I had fun shooting an M-16 and splattering cactus everywhere. lol! We didn't buy it because we didn't know where he got it from.