From the Brady Law to the GFSZA - 22 Years of Gun Control "Successes"...

Senator Levin,

Thank you for your recent response to my letter regarding your stance on firearms control.

I would like to take a moment to address some of the "successes" you quote in your letter.

You stated in your letter that, from 1994 to 2008, the Brady Law has kept 1.6 million firearms out of the hands of "potentially dangerous individuals." You are quite proud of that fact. According to a Denver Post article dated 12/19/1999, each year 12.6 million firearms are sold in the US; that number has gone up in recent years, but for the sake of discussion, let's use that number. This means that, for the fourteen year period to which you reference, more than 176,400,000 firearms were sold in the United States. Using your number of 1.6 million, this means that the Brady Law, for which billions of dollars were spent to facilitate its implementation and enforcement, has been successful in keeping 0.9% of all purchasers from legally acquiring a firearm. You're right! That is something to be proud of, and certainly justifies the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars to implement and continue enforcing.

There is one slight problem with your figures, however. A 0.9% success rate over fourteen years hardly explains the huge drops (over 20%) in "gun violence" that you attribute to the Brady Law. A better indicator of success would be the FBI data that show a direct correlation to the number of firearms legally purchased by Americans in the exercise of their Second Amendment rights to bear arms for their own defense, and the dramatic drop in "gun violence." When criminals know that there is a high probability that the person they might attack is armed, the likelihood of carrying through with the attack decreases dramatically. I believe this is what you used to refer to as "Mutually Assured Destruction" in the bad ol' days of the cold war nuclear arms race.  The fact that an armed citizenry lowers the probability of a criminal attack has been well-known for centuries. Cesare Bonesana wrote the following in 1764:

"The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons."

That gun control (or arms control) does not work has been a well-known fact for over two hundred years.

Your letter raises another issue, one that you consider a success, but which, you stated, you want to see expanded. Your letter states that in 2008, 9.9 million background checks were run for firearms purchases, producing 147,000 rejections. You consider it a success that 147,000 "potentially dangerous individuals" were denied the ability to legally purchase a firearm. The math, however, once again shows us that the background checks mandated by the Brady Law stopped a whopping 1.5% of purchasers from legally obtaining a firearm. Considering the billions we spend for enforcement of the Brady Law, the results are statistically insignificant.  But let's take a second to consider the TRUE achievement of Brady with regard to this statistic.  147,000 "potentially dangerous individuals" were denied the ability to purchase a firearm through channels that were trackable.  Did it prevent them from purchasing firearms through other, perhaps illegal, sources.  NO.  So in the final analysis, Brady has prevented NOTHING.

I could go on to address the other issues you raise in your response, but there really is no need. The number of incidents in which high capacity magazines have been used in relation to the total number of incidents involving firearms that occur each year in the United States is, once again, statistically nearly non-existent. You are once again proving the truthfulness of the adage, “hard cases make bad law”; you have successfully used a relative handful of incidents to drive your ideologically-flawed agenda to implement bad laws in an effort to nullify the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

Sir, it is time that you acknowledge that the gun control laws that you have helped enact are, in fact, abject failures. The Brady Law has prevented a statistically meaningless number of individuals from legally obtaining firearms. The Gun Free School Zones Act not only has not prevented anything, it has resulted in over 700 casualties since its initial enactment in 1990 because it guarantees that no one can effectively defend themselves within these zones, and must wait twenty or more minutes for police to even arrive on scene - effecting an entry takes even longer. It is time to repeal these laws, and allow the American people to defend themselves as  the Second Amendment states is our RIGHT, and the US Supreme Court has stated in more than ten (10) rulings is our individual OBLIGATION.

"Reports: Marines Not Permitted Live Ammo"

This was the title of the report posted by the Washington Free Beacon on September 13, 2012 (Reports: marines not permitted live ammo).  According to the report, based on blog entries from a marine blog site, our ambassador prohibited marines tasked with the protection of the US Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, the use of live ammunition.  In foreign countries, it is the ambassador who determines the rules of engagement (ROE) for the marine security detachment assigned to their duty station.  In this case, the blog entries indicate that the ambassador, who happened to be stateside when the attack on our embassy occurred, apparently believed that a simple show of force would be sufficient to deter a determined aggressor.

History has shown us, however, that "shows of force" are counterproductive in the middle east.

In the fall of 1982, US Marines were sent to Beirut, Lebanon, as part of a multi-national force designed to provide a show of force (officially designated a "Mission of Presence") calculated to calm tensions in that area.  Before the deployment, US policy makers were strongly advised that, if they insisted on intervening in Beirut, they would need to do so by force of arms; a mere show of force would be taken as a sign of weakness.  Despite the warnings, policy makers proceeded with their plans.  We know what eventually happened.  A Vehicle borne improvised explosive device (VBIED) were detonated at the marine barracks, killing 241 American military personnel.

An investigation into the incident, for which the US never truly retaliated, revealed that guards stationed outside the barracks were required to keep their weapons at Condition 4 - no magazines inserted, and no rounds chambered.  The fact-finding commission established by then-President Reagan found that there might have been fewer deaths if the barracks guards had been permitted to carry loaded weapons.

Which brings us to the present day, and the question, "What if?"  Three of our embassies in Libya, Egypt, and Yemen have been attacked in the last week.  In none of these instances have we heard about marines responding with live fire.  An ambassador and at least three other embassy personnel have been killed.  Would these events have happened if marines had been allowed to carry weapons with live ammunition?  What if the ROE had allowed marines to truly defend US soil?  Would we have dead personnel?

And what are we going to do about it?

The Two Tragedies of 9/11...

Eleven years ago, on the morning of September 11, 2001, four airliners were hijacked by Islamic terrorists in an effort to bring our country to its knees.  Nearly 3,000 people died in the resulting attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center in Manhattan, the Pentagon, and an attempted attack on the White House that was stopped by the passengers of United Airlines flight 93.  Despite protests to the contrary, our nation was changed that day as the God-given rights of citizens recognized and protected by our Constitution were scrapped. The terrorists won.  While we may have finally gotten bin Laden, there is nothing to suggest that the freedoms that have been taken from us over the course of the last eleven years are ever going to be restored.  bin Laden may have lost the battle, but in bringing about fundamental changes in our Constitutionally-protected freedoms, he won the war.

On September 11, 2012, a new tragedy is slated to occur.  It is the premier of a new program on NBC entitled, "The New Normal."

This is a "comedy" about a single mom who becomes the surrogate for a same-sex couple.  It is an attempt to mainstream the idea that same-sex couples are like everyone else, and should be just as acceptable as heterosexual couples.  The use of comedy is the sugar coating that is intended to take the edge off that message and make the medicine easier to swallow.

There is, however, nothing "new" or "normal" about the message of this show.

Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years, same-sex couples have been around for thousands of years, and both have historically been viewed as taboo by most cultures across the world, not just the "christian" cultures of the West.

More to the point, it is a violation of God's Word.

The Old Testament has this to say:

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."  Leviticus 20:13

God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of this sin.

"But that was the Old Testament," some say.  "The New Testament has nothing to say about the subject.  Jesus, in particular, never addressed the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  You can't apply such outdated laws to people who were born this way,  or who are living in committed, loving relationships."

OK.

Let’s assume for the moment that the argument put forward by homosexuals is correct, and they really are born this way.  The assertion today is, if they were born this way, then it is wrong to expect them to change.  They can’t change who they are.

For the sake of discussion, let’s accept that premise.

There is even scripture to back it up.

Psalm 51:5 says, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”  Sin is an inbred part of the human condition.  It is part and parcel of who we are by birth and by inclination.  And according to Ephesians 2:8-9 ("For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.") and Titus 3:5 ("he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit"), there is nothing we can do to change our predisposition on our own.

We are predisposed to lie, cheat, gossip, kill, fornicate, adulterate, and steal - just to name a few.  The name of the sin doesn’t matter; it is axiomatic that the predisposition to do such things is part of who we are because of the fallen nature of the human condition.

Using the logic put forward by the homosexual lobby, then, we shouldn’t designate anything as illegal, nor should we expect that people have the ability to change.  After all, the person who engages in these activities, all declared sin by the Bible and held to be violations of the moral codes of society, is simply following the inclination with which they were born.

But we don’t think like that.  We expect people to change their predisposition to conform to societal, and more importantly, moral and Biblical norms.  We expect them to stop stealing, lying, cheating, fornicating, adulterating, or killing.  And we have no problem saying that GOD can change them.  After all, that is why God sent His Son, Jesus, to die for us - to deliver us from our sins (“...the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age…”, Gal. 1:3-4)

Homosexuality, in this respect, is no different than any other predisposition declared by the Bible to be sin.

The Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is sin.  Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”  That doesn’t get much clearer.  Oh, but you say, that was the OLD TESTAMENT; we live under the NEW TESTAMENT, and it doesn’t say anything like that.  For me to accept that line of reasoning first requires me to believe that Malachi 3:6 (“For I the Lord do not change...”) and James 1:17 (“...the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.) are wrong, and God’s character is variable and changing.  Since God says His character doesn’t change, I have to reject that line of reasoning.  

So let's see what the New Testament tells us.  

Romans 1 tells us that, because man rejects the revealed Truth of God contained in His Word AND in creation (verses 18-21) and professes himself to be wise according to his own ideological and intellectual constructs - setting himself up as the ultimate measure of truth (verses 22-23) - GOD GAVE HIM UP (verse 24).  What was one of the many results? 

  

“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.  For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (verses 24-27)

Men having intercourse with men and women having intercourse with women.  Today this is known as homosexuality; it used to be known as sodomy.  That is the NEW Testament teaching.  Paul doesn’t stop there, though.  He goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Paul explicitly names homosexuality in these verses.  Yes, he lists a whole lot of others as well (remember what we said at the beginning about other sins?), but he specifically names homosexuality.  But wait a minute - I thought all sins were the same!  Paul puts that notion to rest in this chapter as well.  Take a look at verses 13 and 18:

“The body is not meant for sexual immorality...Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body” (verses 13, 18).

Yes, all sins are reprehensible to God, but He takes special exception to sins of a sexual nature - that’s not MY interpretation, those are the explicit words of God through the Apostle Paul!

So let’s go back to where we began.  We are all predisposed to different sins.  In that respect, homosexuality is no different than any other sin.  But just as we expect people to change, to stop practicing all of the other sins we listed previously, so the Bible says there is hope for the homosexual!  Regardless of what is being spouted by psychiatrists and psychologists today, one’s predisposition can be changed.

You see, 1 Corinthians 6 doesn’t leave us in our sin without any recourse or hope of redemption.  Remember verses 9-10, the verses that specifically name homosexuality along with the laundry list of other sins?  They are followed by verse 12:

“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (bolding added).

The Bible, contrary to politically correct social theory, tells us that, just as it is possible for our predisposition toward all other sins to be changed, so can one’s predisposition toward homosexuality!!!  Is this just my interpretation?  NO!  Read the verses for yourself!

You see, there is no parallel between homosexuality and being African-American, even though this is one of the most prevalent arguments used by the homosexual lobby to garner support.  And an article published by ABC News tells us that there are many African-American pastors - even those who regularly advise the President - who aren’t buying it ("Obama calls pastors to explain gay marriage support; black churches 'conflicted' by president's decision.").  Being black - or yellow, or red - is not a sinful predisposition.  Christ didn’t die to save one from being a different color or ethnicity.  But the Bible tells us that He DID die to save us from our sinful predispositions so that we could live lives that please God.  He saved us to DESTROY our old predispositions so that He can give us NEW ones, predispositions that desire to follow the revealed Truth of God’s Word.  As Paul tells us in Romans 5:6-7,

“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.  For he that is dead is freed from sin.”

As this debate continues to unfold, there are many who assert that this has nothing to do with religion, or Christianity, or the Bible, that the Bible really doesn’t spend a lot of time addressing it - as if God has to say something many times in order for us to take Him seriously.  And after all, Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality.  You’re right.  He didn’t.  When given the perfect opportunity to change or expand the one man/one woman paradigm to include same-sex couples, as recorded in Matthew and Mark, He went right back to the truth given in Genesis 2:23-24, 

“Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

Is this about hating homosexuals?  No.  This is about loving them by giving them the Truth of God’s Word.  You see, Proverbs 26:28 tells us that ”A lying tongue hates its victims, and a flattering mouth works ruin.”  We don’t accuse the doctor of hating us when he or she gives us truth that we would rather not hear.  We acknowledge that he or she is looking out for our welfare.  If we accept this as true in the context of human wisdom, then how much more true is it when the wisdom we share is of divine origin? 

And in the context of this new show, the Truth tells us that there is nothing "new" or "normal" about same-sex couples raising children together.  It is a tragedy that this show has even been allowed to air.  

Hence, the second tragedy of 9/11. 

No truer words....

"I have seen firsthand that being president doesn't change who you are - it REVEALS who you are."  First Lady Michelle Obama.

For those of us who warned against voting for Mr. Obama the first time around, we wholeheartedly agree with that statement.  The President's motives and agendas have been clearly revealed by the policies he has chosen to pursue.

Thank you, Mrs. Obama, for speaking the truth.

Our Nation's Spiritual Heritage....

To those who maintain that the Founders of this nation were something other than Christian, I say, let their words speak for themselves.


George Washington, 1st U.S. President:

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian." --The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.

John Adams, 2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence:

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."  --Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.

"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

"Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System." --Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence:

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event." --Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."  --The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

James Madison, 4th U.S. President:  

"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ." --America's Providential History by Stephen K. McDowell, p. 93.

William Penn, Founder of Pennsylvania:

"I do declare to the whole world that we believe the Scriptures to contain a declaration of the mind and will of God in and to those ages in which they were written; being given forth by the Holy Ghost moving in the hearts of holy men of God; that they ought also to be read, believed, and fulfilled in our day; being used for reproof and instruction, that the man of God may be perfect. They are a declaration and testimony of heavenly things themselves, and, as such, we carry a high respect for them. We accept them as the words of God Himself." --Treatise of the Religion of the Quakers, p. 355.

Roger Sherman, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution:

"I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance equal in power and glory. That the scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him. That God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, so as thereby he is not the author or approver of sin. That he creates all things, and preserves and governs all creatures and all their actions, in a manner perfectly consistent with the freedom of will in moral agents, and the usefulness of means. That he made man at first perfectly holy, that the first man sinned, and as he was the public head of his posterity, they all became sinners in consequence of his first transgression, are wholly indisposed to that which is good and inclined to evil, and on account of sin are liable to all the miseries of this life, to death, and to the pains of hell forever.

"I believe that God having elected some of mankind to eternal life, did send his own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind, so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the gospel offer: also by his special grace and spirit, to regenerate, sanctify and enable to persevere in holiness, all who shall be saved; and to procure in consequence of their repentance and faith in himself their justification by virtue of his atonement as the only meritorious cause.

"I believe a visible church to be a congregation of those who make a credible profession of their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, joined by the bond of the covenant."I believe that the souls of believers are at their death made perfectly holy, and immediately taken to glory: that at the end of this world there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a final judgement of all mankind, when the righteous shall be publicly acquitted by Christ the Judge and admitted to everlasting life and glory, and the wicked be sentenced to everlasting punishment." --The Life of Roger Sherman, pp. 272-273.

John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Clergyman and President of Princeton University:

"While we give praise to God, the Supreme Disposer of all events, for His interposition on our behalf, let us guard against the dangerous error of trusting in, or boasting of, an arm of flesh ... If your cause is just, if your principles are pure, and if your conduct is prudent, you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts.

"What follows from this? That he is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.

"Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his country." --Sermon at Princeton University, "The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men," May 17, 1776.

Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution:

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man." --Famous American Statesmen, p. 126.

Patrick Henry, Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." --The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii.

"The Bible ... is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed." --Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry, p. 402.

John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the American Bible Society:

"By conveying the Bible to people thus circumstanced, we certainly do them a most interesting kindness. We thereby enable them to learn that man was originally created and placed in a state of happiness, but, becoming disobedient, was subjected to the degradation and evils which he and his posterity have since experienced.

"The Bible will also inform them that our gracious Creator has provided for us a Redeemer, in whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; that this Redeemer has made atonement "for the sins of the whole world," and thereby reconciling the Divine justice with the Divine mercy has opened a way for our redemption and salvation; and that these inestimable benefits are of the free gift and grace of God, not of our deserving, nor in our power to deserve."
--In God We Trust—The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers, p. 379.

"In forming and settling my belief relative to the doctrines of Christianity, I adopted no articles from creeds but such only as, on careful examination, I found to be confirmed by the Bible." --American Statesman Series, p. 360.

Quotes compiled by Mary Fairchild, http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers_3.htm