Preface:
 The following article was originally prepared as part of a public address.  Its purpose is to demonstrate that our nation's founders believed men had not only a right but a duty "to keep and bear arms."

 As the attack on private gun ownership grows, an understanding of the thinking of the framers of the Second Amendment becomes imperative.  The reason for this is the long standing legal principle holding that the intent of the lawmaker is essentially the interpretation of the law.

 While some of America's cities and towns have enacted highly questionable laws banning private ownership of weapons, others have mandated just the opposite -- that able-bodied citizens should be required to own a personal weapon.

 Recently, a journalist with a major newspaper contacted us to discuss this dichotomy.  He was not in favor of banning guns, but he vehemently held that forcing citizens to own weapons was just as much an act of tyranny as was denying their ownership.  Even though he could not provide any historical precedent wherein a tyranny or would-be tyrant had insisted that the people be armed, he still challenged the propriety and the legality of requiring gun ownership.

 So we asked that he read the following address in rough draft.  A few days later, he called our offices to admit that he had been wrong and that this presentation had completely changed his thinking.  He urged us to publish it.

 We had already intended to make these thoughts available in one form or another because the issue promises to become increasingly significant.  We are grateful to our journalist friend for the added encouragement to do so.

		Get America Up In Arms
      		by William P. Fall

 "Government," said George Washington, "is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!  Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

 Among the Founding Fathers, there probably was no stronger agreement on anything than on their fear of government.  There is, in fact, no greater danger to personal liberty and individual rights than the innate force of government.  The worst crimes in all history have been perpetrated by governments.  Even Deicide was once committed in the name of law in a classic abuse of government force.

  All government, therefore, is a potential evil but necessary nonetheless.  Men of good will cannot hope to secure tranquility of their domestic lands without providing the means for their common defense.

 For this reason the Founding Fathers saw the need for a central government, a Union formed by the sovereign states with the consent of the people, for the defense of their divinely-ordained sovereign rights.  The principle purpose of that central government was to protect men's rights from the threat of despotism and tyranny.  So the Founders devised a Republic that was strong enough to protect the people adequately, yet not strong enough to be a tyrannical threat itself.  This was achieved by drafting a Constitution that strictly limited and diffused the central government's power and then added some further checks and balances.

 Few Americans realize today, however, that the very center of our Constitutional system of checks and balances is the Second Amendment.In reading the 28th and 29th <b>Federalist Papers</b>, written by Alexander Hamilton, it becomes clear that this is exactly what the delegates to the Constitutional Convention believed of this Amendment.

 The Second Amendment, you see, does not simply guarantee the right to own weapons.  If that were all the Founders were concerned about, they would simply have said, "The right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed."  That would have been sufficient to safeguard their sovereign right to defend themselves individually -- which, of course, is the primary purpose of the Amendment.

 But it says more than that.  The Second Amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 Immediately, we should see a vast new dimension to that article. This is not just a guarantee of one's right to individual self-defense.  It is a call to common duty!  It says that a free state -- a state free from tyranny or attack -- can only remain secure by the presence of a well-armed citizenry that stands at the ready service of a well-organized militia.  A central purpose of the Amendment is to guarantee that each free state shall stay free.  And it says that a well-armed citizenry is ultimately necessary to guarantee the freedom that it seeks to ensure.

 In fact, the Amendment stops just short of actually mandating that citizens keep and bear arms.  As Hamilton made quite clear in the Federalist Papers, such a mandate from the national level would have been a usurpation of authority held by the sovereign states and a presumption of power for a national government which in itself would smack of tyranny.

 There is no question about what the Founders intended by the Second Amendment.  The intent of the lawmakers is essential in the interpretation of the law.  The personal desires of those who later interpret or enforce the law should be of no consequence.

 Here is what Hamilton said in the Federalist Papers: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which, against the usurpations of national leaders, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success..."

 In other words, as Hamilton himself on to explain at length, the Second Amendment is the only check held by the people themselves that enforces all the others written into the Constitution.  Without it, and without what Hamilton called the people's "original right of self-defense," all the written laws in the world would be nothing but mere words on paper, impotent to restrain government leaders from despotic excesses because the only power to enforce those laws or restrain those leaders would be then held by those very leaders the laws are supposed to restrain.

 Could it be any clearer, then, that the Second Amendment does not just protect our individual right to self-defense?  It actually stresses a public duty not only to keep arms, but to bear them in readiness for the common defense and public safety of all citizens.

 Carry guns for public safety?  Yes, indeed!  For, while it is true that government poses the greatest danger to freedom, especially with the kinds of excessive power it wields today, the most common and immediate threat to our lives and property comes from criminals -- the non-government kind, that is.  Nothing can better deter crime than a well-armed public that is always prepared to use its arms if necessary.

 There is no better equalizer in the world for a young, dainty, five-foot, ninety-pound lady against a big, burly mugger or rapist than a .38-caliber snub-nose revolver.  And nobody knows this better than the muggers and rapists themselves!  With that "Persuader" in her purse (holster), the little lady suddenly grows about two feet taller and adds about one hundred pounds of solid muscle.

 On the other hand, let us consider how gun control affects crime. Since 1911, the State of New York has had one of the strictest gun-control laws.  It is so strict that, as of 1974, less than four thousandths of one percent of New York City's residents were legally licensed to own a firearm!  At about the same time, it was estimated that a New York City resident stood an <b>eighty</b> percent chance of falling victim to a serious crime in his lifetime!  New York City, where legal gun ownership is practically impossible, has one of the highest crime rates in the country.

 Washington, D.C., also has strict gun control.  There, the crime rare is double that of the State of New York.

 In 1974, Massachusetts passed a stringent gun law.  After it went into effect, the state's violent crime shot up fifty-five percent. Recent crime statistics give Boston the distinction of being the most violent of our nation's larger cities.  It had become so bad in Massachusetts that the liberal state legislature passed a new lawpermitting citizens to use armed force if their lives were threatened by a criminal act.  Imagine the need for a law to allow a person to defend his life!  Unfortunately, Massachusetts citizens (are told that they) must first get legal permits and identification papers to be allowed to obtain firearms.

 If gun control would curtail crime, as the Liberals assure us it will, then places like Boston, Washington, and New York should be the safest cities to live in.  Instead, they are the most dangerous. Evidence shows that crime increases dramatically where gun control laws limit the law-abiding citizen's right to own firearms.  On the other hand, the crime rate is lowest where the right to keep and bear arms is least infringed.

 We don't really need statistics to prove what we are saying here -- it is just common sense.  Anyone who claims that disarming the law-abiding citizen will reduce crime has to be either dishonest or a fool.  And God didn't make that many fools!  But there sure are a lot of dishonest people in this world, and the worst ones always seem to wind up in government.

 But isn't protection and crime prevention the job of the police? Of course.  That is the purpose for hiring them.  We hire them as a professional means of defense, to protect our lives, our families, our property, and our communities against threats that may exceed our personal defenses.  But never forget that it is we, the private citizens, who hire them and, in doing so, we do not abrogate our own right and responsibility to protect ourselves and our fellow citizens.

 Since government started using our tax money to buy special interest votes and play Santa Claus instead of confining itself to the job it is supposed to do, we get less and less police protection. And the problem is greatly compounded by the criminal-coddling codes of our courts and penal systems that foster more crime.

 Now, suppose local bureaucrats did pour more of those tax dollars they take from us into building much larger, highly efficient, and unquestionably effective police forces.  Would gun control then become acceptable?  Certainly not!  Any government force that big and that effective is exactly the kind of danger the Founders of our Republic wanted us to protect ourselves against -- with arms!  A government of that size and "efficiency" is almost certain to be a police state.

 We say again: The primary responsibility for the individual defense of our lives and property, and for the common defense of our neighbors and our homeland, as recognized and intended by the Founding Fathers, rests with us, the private citizens, not with government. And so, yes, it is true: The moral duty for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is in the best interest of public safety.  By meeting this duty of providing for the common defense, a strong, well-armed citizenry supplies the strongest deterrent not only to crime, but also to the greater threat of despotism and tyranny.

 Here again is Alexander Hamilton on the subject.  Speaking of that danger of despotism from our own government, he said, "The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase...provided the citizens understand their rights and are prepared to defend them."Or, to put it in the simpler language of Patrick Henry, "The great object is that every man be armed."

 George Mason was the principle composer of the Bill of Rights. According to Mason, "to disarm the people -- that was the best and most effective way to enslave them."  Obviously, both the British and the Americans fully agreed on that point.  On April 19, 1775, the British marched in force to Concord, Massachusetts, to seize the Americans' guns.  It was then, in defense of his God-given rights, that the embattled American farmer began America's forcible resistance to tyranny by firing the famed shot heard 'round the world.

 Indeed, that symbolic shot <b>was</b> heard 'round the world because it launched a noble movement that revolutionized governmental philosophy and eventually raised the worldwide level of individual liberty and common prosperity to its highest point in all history.

 As we stated earlier, paraphrasing the Preamble to the Constitution, men of good will could scarcely hope to secure the blessings of liberty, or to ensure the domestic peace and tranquility of their homelands, without providing for their common defense.

 Self-defense is a God-given right.  Common defense-- the defense of one's family, his fellow citizens, and his homeland-- is a God-given duty.  It is a duty that is fulfilled by keeping and bearing arms with a preparedness and a willingness to use them if it should become necessary.  And it is a duty that must never be completely abandoned and surrendered to police forces and military services.

 The term "common defense" means, first and foremost, defense of the people by the people themselves.  And that is what they intended by the precise phrasing they so carefully chose in writing the Second Amendment.

 Read those words once more, and see if that meaning is not perfectly clear: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 As mentioned, the only reason the framers of the federal constitution did not use the word "duty" instead of "right" was because federal power would be needed to enforce the keeping and bearing of arms if such were considered to be a lawful(ly required)duty.

 That, of course, was exactly the kind of authority they did not want vested in the federal government, partly for their fear of creating a too-powerful central government, but more so out of their concern not to usurp the authority from the sovereign states.  Yet in no way was it denied that the states themselves could and should rightfully exercise such authority.

 Colonial Massachusetts, for instance, had a law requiring that its citizens be armed or face severe fines.  Likewise, colonial Virginia required by law that every home have a working firearm, that travelers be "well armed," and that citizens take part in public target practice on Sundays.  This, of course, was to maintain a strong common defense.

 The example of Virginia, in fact, serves very nicely to explain the phrase "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state."  Is it not correct to infer that the world "state" in this particular Constitutional context was intended to apply more to our unite states than to the nation state?  After all, it was stressed in every way possible by the Founders that the central government was to be a union of sovereign states -- one in which the sovereignty of the individual states would be jealously guarded and defended.  The national government was not to be a central government designed to replace or exceed the authority of the states, except in a few clearly defined areas.  But how could the separate states defend their sovereignty against encroachment from the national government?  By means of a well-armed, well-trained Militia made up of the private citizens whose officers would be appointed by the states.  That, according to Alexander Hamilton, was precisely what was meant by "a well-regulated Militia."

 Here are Hamilton's words pertaining to the regulation of the militia: "Little more can be reasonably aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped...  But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous and impracticable: yet it is a matter of utmost importance that a well digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the establishment of the militia...  This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to [the army] in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me to be the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

 Now, that is something of a mouthful.  But you must remember that, while Hamilton was a great political philosopher, he was also still a New York lawyer!

 In plainer English, Hamilton was saying simply this: We should, as much as possible, rely on ourselves, the private citizens, for our own common defense against all threats -- whether those threats be from external powers, internal government, or common criminals.  If we surrender this responsibility completely to government, we would create a government so powerful that we would be unable to control it or to resist its abuses.  But, in order to meet our individual responsibility for the common defense, we need organized training and leadership.

 It may still become necessary to have a formal standing army for national defense; but if the people are well-armed and well-trained, that standing army could never be used by corrupt leaders to tyrannize the people themselves.  No one today should have to be reminded of the threat to liberty posed by a standing army, reflecting on how one has been used in Poland in recent months [years].  [Indeed, the forces of the federal government have been used against private citizens and groups in our own country in the last year or two.]

 In some respects, Switzerland offers a practical example that is at least approximate to the kind of "common defense" our Founding Fathers wanted.  Every draft-age Swiss male is required to maintain a firearm.  As a matter of fact, Swiss law requires that what is in reality a machine gun be kept in every home, with a suitable supply of ammunition.  Partly because of the Swiss people's military preparedness, their little country was able to remain unscathed by two world wars that raged all around them.  Also, its crime rate is so low that it is very enviable.  And, contrary to the irrational logic used by our anti-gun crowd, shooting incidents in Switzerland are very rare, despite the widespread presence of weapons.  (The value of this example is to show the effects of a well-armed and well-regulated militia.  It is not to advocate such laws for our own federal government.  As Hamilton observed, that would be "mischievous and impracticable.")

 All of this, is a far cry from the interpretation of the Second Amendment that control-minded Liberals nowadays are trying to foist upon us.  They would have us believe that a well-regulated militia means a national guard or army reserve made up part time soldiers whose use of weapons would be closely regulated by the central government.  Can anyone honestly believe this absurdity, knowing the enormous distrust our Founding Fathers had for all governments and knowing that the principle purpose of the Constitution was to protect the people from  governmental regulation and power?

 George Mason, one of the major authors of the Bill of Rights, defined then-existing state militias in this way: "They consist now of the whole people except for a few public officials!

 In 1903, Congress defined the militia as consisting of all able-bodied male citizens "more than eighteen and less than fourty-five years of age."  This meant those to whom fell the public duty to provide for the common defense.  It certainly did not preclude women or men of other ages from the right to keep and bear arms; nor, in fact, did it preclude others from their moral duty to do so.

 In 1939, the United States Supreme Court, drawing from Constitutional and historical documents, interpreted the original intent of the word "militia" as to mean one comprised of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense, and further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common usage at the time."

 Once more, it is the intent of the lawmakers that counts, not the personal desires of those who later interpret the law.

 The fact is that the only serious utterances that can be found to support the mentality and desires of American's disarmers and gun confiscators are the following:

 Lenin said: "...one of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism [is] the arming of the workers [communists] and the disarming of the bourgeoisie [the middle class]."

 Leon Trotsky said that in order to assure Communism's totalitarian state, there "arises the necessity of disarming the bourgeoisie and arming the workers, of creating a Communist army."

 Josef Stalin said: "If the opposition disarms, well and good.  If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."

 Mao Tse-Tung said it best of all: "Power comes out of the barrel of a gun."  Since he is the greatest mass murderer in all history, we can take his word for it.

 What brings the foregoing thoughts to mind at this time, of course, is the dangerously determined drive to disarm America that is (suddenly) upon us.  It is in large part a drive to disarm its national defense; yes, but it is also a drive to disarm its citizenry as well by piecemeal attack at the local (and state) level.  And, as we have tried to demonstrate, one cannot be considered apart from the other: A well-armed citizenry is a nation's last line of defense against foreign invasion and its only sure defense against domestic tyranny.  Communism has never yet been imposed on a well-armed population.

 If the American people are now succumbing to the hysterical fright-peddling of the disarmament movement -- on either front -- it is largely because they have lost their sense of moral duty both for common and self-defense.  By the same token, were that moral duty sufficiently reawakened in them, neither the conspiratorial drive to weaken our national defenses nor the one to disarm our private citizens could make any headway whatever.  It is high time that we take the offensive educationally and get America up in arms!