01-15-2013, 12:21 AM
An Anti-Crime Constitutional Amendment
In the United States, there are increasing numbers of violent crimes being committed against people and property. There is much debate as to whether this is an actual increase in crime, an increase in the number of crimes being reported to the police, or just the medias sensationalism to make it appear like an increase in crime. Whatever the outcome of the debate is, I have a two-prong solution to the problem to dramatically lower the crime rate, provide jobs, and assist in strengthening the economy. The first prong must be a radical change in the justice system. There should be a tougher stance by the Justice Department on the punishment of criminals with mandatory prison sentences for violent crimes, no parole, and definitely no by reason of insanity pleas to keep from going to prison. To use an old cliché, if you want to dance, you have to pay the fiddler. This will never happen, due to too many do-gooders, also known as liberals, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Handgun Control, Inc.
The justice system also has to change the way they prosecute people who have killed criminals while protecting their property and families. Why should a man or woman be convicted of murder or manslaughter when all they did was protect their property or family? Is that not a constitutional right? Also, the confiscation of property without permission of the owner is unconstitutional. Making anyone turn in their handguns, or prosecute them if they do not is not in accordance with the greatest document of all in the United States, the Constitution! The citizens of the United States must become stronger in their resistance to crime. People must stop being as defenseless as cows led to slaughter. Crime, violent or otherwise, thrives on the defenseless, and if being on the offensive, literally, against crime, so be it. The only way to do that is to overhaul the justice system, adopt my proposal as a law.
The second prong must be mandatory ownership of weapons by the citizens of the United States. My solution to the growing public concern of crime is to propose a constitutional amendment making mandatory ownership of weapons the law, above and beyond the right guarantied by the Second amendment, the right to bear arms. Notice I said weapons, not guns. My proposal will make the ownership of guns, flame throwers, mortars, anti-tank weapons, et cetera mandatory, tanks and artillery optional. The way I see the problem, the United States has gotten away from her past, in which every family owned a weapon. This is due to the change in demographics, from rural to urban society, and the do-gooders visions and nightmares of Rambo dancing in their collective, mindless little heads, have forced the law-abiding citizens of the United States from owning firearms by passing unconstitutional laws banning handguns, and passing the so-called Brady Bill. Liberals think having mandatory waiting periods for handgun purchases will lower the crime rate, it will supposedly make getting guns more difficult. How will it lower crime rates? Criminals would still get their guns by resorting to burglaries thereby increasing crime rates. Most liberals say this is the only way to reduce crime. Hindsight is 20-20. The liberals are afraid of losing their power of coercion over their arch-enemy: the conservative.
Limiting gun ownership has never been a solution to anything. There are two sides to this. In fact, three locations in the world will be named that have very little, or any violent crimes committed due to mandatory gun ownership. However, one location with gun control and high crime should hit close to home, since it is our nations capitol. First is Switzerland, whose violent crime rate is almost non-existent since almost everybody is in that countrys military or military reserve and keeps his or her assigned weapon at their home for any national emergency. Second is Norway, another European country without almost any violent crime. Norway has basically the same military reserve set-up as Switzerland, and therefore, every reservist keeps his or her assigned weapons at home. These includes mortars, machine-guns, and anti-tank weapons. Both of those countries have government issued and sanctioned gun ownership. And last, there is a city in Georgia that passed a mandatory handgun ownership ordinance a few years ago, and crime dropped down to virtually zero. The criminals were afraid of being killed by the owners of handguns. The population was no longer defenseless. That city just passed an amendment to the law allowing for carrying of weapons openly. Rape has dropped to zero as a result. On the other hand, Washington, D.C. is a city with strict handgun control legislation, and seems to be leading the nation (an ironic thought) in murder rates. People sure as Hell are not being killed by a kid with a pea-shooter. They are being stabbed and shot to death. Why? The criminals know that the victims are defenseless, and like the cowards they are, prey on defenseless people only, not the people capable of fighting back. It is common knowledge that statistics show the majority of crime victims were defenseless, or not aware of what was happening around them. Self-defense courses teach the students to be aware, at all times, of your surroundings; stick to lighted areas, do not ride with strangers, et cetera.
How I propose to give the population the weapons needed to fight crime is simple. The United States military is down-sizing since the collapse of communism; the government can transfer the weapons that are not needed for the military, to the citizens of the United States. This is not a new or radical idea, it has happened before in this country. At the end of World War One, the government gave the soldiers the option of keeping their issued rifles and shotguns when they were released from service. The Bureau of Civilian Marksmanship still give M1 Garand rifles to civilians in officially sanctioned marksmanship clubs. I propose to take this a step further. The government can continue to have the defense contractors make the weapons so that every man, women, and child (at age 18), except convicted felons and people with real and documented psychological disorders, can have his or her choice of armament. That way, the defense contractors still have a means of production in the arms industry, if war should ever breakout. While at the same time, the government is spending money on very cost-effective social program for eradicating crime. This will also provide more jobs for Americans, in all associated armament industries, thereby lowering the unemployment rate, and helping to strengthen the economy. This proposal will help solve three of the most pressing concerns of the majority of Americans with the adoption of this proposal.
The proposal would deter crime through the use of uncertainty and fear. Just the thought of people being armed will decrease crime. How would a burglar know if the house he was attempting to rob would mean instant incineration from the owners flame thrower, or that the police would need a fork and a spoon to pick him up, after his or her misguided approach for monetary gain failed, from a hit from an anti-tank weapon. The criminal would ultimately pay for the error of their ways. The thought of women carrying pistols would prevent rapes. Reason? What man in his right mind would want to attempt to rape a pistol? The current fad of drive-by shootings would dramatically be reduced if the people walking on the street would carry machine or submachine guns, or better yet, anti-tank weapons to shoot back. Highway shootings would decrease, since people would have machine guns mounted on their vehicles.
In the United States, there are increasing numbers of violent crimes being committed against people and property. There is much debate as to whether this is an actual increase in crime, an increase in the number of crimes being reported to the police, or just the medias sensationalism to make it appear like an increase in crime. Whatever the outcome of the debate is, I have a two-prong solution to the problem to dramatically lower the crime rate, provide jobs, and assist in strengthening the economy. The first prong must be a radical change in the justice system. There should be a tougher stance by the Justice Department on the punishment of criminals with mandatory prison sentences for violent crimes, no parole, and definitely no by reason of insanity pleas to keep from going to prison. To use an old cliché, if you want to dance, you have to pay the fiddler. This will never happen, due to too many do-gooders, also known as liberals, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Handgun Control, Inc.
The justice system also has to change the way they prosecute people who have killed criminals while protecting their property and families. Why should a man or woman be convicted of murder or manslaughter when all they did was protect their property or family? Is that not a constitutional right? Also, the confiscation of property without permission of the owner is unconstitutional. Making anyone turn in their handguns, or prosecute them if they do not is not in accordance with the greatest document of all in the United States, the Constitution! The citizens of the United States must become stronger in their resistance to crime. People must stop being as defenseless as cows led to slaughter. Crime, violent or otherwise, thrives on the defenseless, and if being on the offensive, literally, against crime, so be it. The only way to do that is to overhaul the justice system, adopt my proposal as a law.
The second prong must be mandatory ownership of weapons by the citizens of the United States. My solution to the growing public concern of crime is to propose a constitutional amendment making mandatory ownership of weapons the law, above and beyond the right guarantied by the Second amendment, the right to bear arms. Notice I said weapons, not guns. My proposal will make the ownership of guns, flame throwers, mortars, anti-tank weapons, et cetera mandatory, tanks and artillery optional. The way I see the problem, the United States has gotten away from her past, in which every family owned a weapon. This is due to the change in demographics, from rural to urban society, and the do-gooders visions and nightmares of Rambo dancing in their collective, mindless little heads, have forced the law-abiding citizens of the United States from owning firearms by passing unconstitutional laws banning handguns, and passing the so-called Brady Bill. Liberals think having mandatory waiting periods for handgun purchases will lower the crime rate, it will supposedly make getting guns more difficult. How will it lower crime rates? Criminals would still get their guns by resorting to burglaries thereby increasing crime rates. Most liberals say this is the only way to reduce crime. Hindsight is 20-20. The liberals are afraid of losing their power of coercion over their arch-enemy: the conservative.
Limiting gun ownership has never been a solution to anything. There are two sides to this. In fact, three locations in the world will be named that have very little, or any violent crimes committed due to mandatory gun ownership. However, one location with gun control and high crime should hit close to home, since it is our nations capitol. First is Switzerland, whose violent crime rate is almost non-existent since almost everybody is in that countrys military or military reserve and keeps his or her assigned weapon at their home for any national emergency. Second is Norway, another European country without almost any violent crime. Norway has basically the same military reserve set-up as Switzerland, and therefore, every reservist keeps his or her assigned weapons at home. These includes mortars, machine-guns, and anti-tank weapons. Both of those countries have government issued and sanctioned gun ownership. And last, there is a city in Georgia that passed a mandatory handgun ownership ordinance a few years ago, and crime dropped down to virtually zero. The criminals were afraid of being killed by the owners of handguns. The population was no longer defenseless. That city just passed an amendment to the law allowing for carrying of weapons openly. Rape has dropped to zero as a result. On the other hand, Washington, D.C. is a city with strict handgun control legislation, and seems to be leading the nation (an ironic thought) in murder rates. People sure as Hell are not being killed by a kid with a pea-shooter. They are being stabbed and shot to death. Why? The criminals know that the victims are defenseless, and like the cowards they are, prey on defenseless people only, not the people capable of fighting back. It is common knowledge that statistics show the majority of crime victims were defenseless, or not aware of what was happening around them. Self-defense courses teach the students to be aware, at all times, of your surroundings; stick to lighted areas, do not ride with strangers, et cetera.
How I propose to give the population the weapons needed to fight crime is simple. The United States military is down-sizing since the collapse of communism; the government can transfer the weapons that are not needed for the military, to the citizens of the United States. This is not a new or radical idea, it has happened before in this country. At the end of World War One, the government gave the soldiers the option of keeping their issued rifles and shotguns when they were released from service. The Bureau of Civilian Marksmanship still give M1 Garand rifles to civilians in officially sanctioned marksmanship clubs. I propose to take this a step further. The government can continue to have the defense contractors make the weapons so that every man, women, and child (at age 18), except convicted felons and people with real and documented psychological disorders, can have his or her choice of armament. That way, the defense contractors still have a means of production in the arms industry, if war should ever breakout. While at the same time, the government is spending money on very cost-effective social program for eradicating crime. This will also provide more jobs for Americans, in all associated armament industries, thereby lowering the unemployment rate, and helping to strengthen the economy. This proposal will help solve three of the most pressing concerns of the majority of Americans with the adoption of this proposal.
The proposal would deter crime through the use of uncertainty and fear. Just the thought of people being armed will decrease crime. How would a burglar know if the house he was attempting to rob would mean instant incineration from the owners flame thrower, or that the police would need a fork and a spoon to pick him up, after his or her misguided approach for monetary gain failed, from a hit from an anti-tank weapon. The criminal would ultimately pay for the error of their ways. The thought of women carrying pistols would prevent rapes. Reason? What man in his right mind would want to attempt to rape a pistol? The current fad of drive-by shootings would dramatically be reduced if the people walking on the street would carry machine or submachine guns, or better yet, anti-tank weapons to shoot back. Highway shootings would decrease, since people would have machine guns mounted on their vehicles.