Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Does Chicago have cause to fear?

Should Chicago Residents Fear the Dismantling of Their 1982 Handgun Ban?

Should residents of the City of Chicago fear the United States Supreme Court finding their twenty eight (28) year old ban on handguns from 1982 unconstitutional? Should Chicago residents live in abject fear of the United States Supreme Court restoring some form of 2nd Amendment rights to the city of Chicago? In a word.... NO!


In the city of Chicago there is a lot of fear. People are afraid. Murders in the city of Chicago are almost at one hundred twenty (120) at the end of April 2010. Chicago homicides are on a pace to exceed four hundred murders once again. In 2008 and 2009, Chicago homicides exceeded the number of United States Military deaths in the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan COMBINED.

This horrendous number of murders are keeping the men and women of Chicago's police department hopping. During the week of Saturday April 18th to Sunday April 24th there were seven (7) murders and eighteen (18) people wounded by convicted thugs wielding illegally obtained firearms in the City of Chicago.

Democrat Representatives John Fritchey (D-Chicago) and LaShawn Ford (D-Chicago) have called upon Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (D-IL) to call out the Illinois National Guard to battle the outrageous surge in violent crime in the Windy City.

Governor Quinn made it clear that he was going to defer to Mayor Daley on the matter. He is not entertaining the idea of sending in armed troops to the streets of Chicago unless Mayor Daley and Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis specifically made the desperate request for the troops.

Mayor Daley and Superintendent Weis refreshed their tired, old, outdated, useless, pathetic and so 1990's calls for stricter gun control laws. I do not know how much stricter one can get in the City of Chicago than a twenty eight (28) year old total ban on handguns, but Mayor Daley and his underlings seem quite willing to ride the misguided train of gun control, without a single morsel of evidence that Chicago's ban on handguns has done anything more than diminish the Bill of Rights.

Do the people of Chicago have something to fear toward the end of June when the United States Supreme Court tells them that their 1982 ban on handgun possession is unconstitutional? No, absolutely not. There is nothing to fear and I'll tell you why...

It is really quite simple. In fact, it is so simple that a child in Kindergarten or even Pre-K could tell you. Law abiding citizens do not commit violent crimes. That is such a simple statement, but it seems as if the idea has never crossed the clouded minds of Chicago politicians. Good people behave themselves.

Good people who own handguns are never a public danger. In fact, I read somewhere and I believe it to be true, that those American citizens who have obtained concealed carry permits actually have a lower rate of criminal convictions than members of the law enforcement community.

Someone who may not be familiar with this issue may well be confused. I can hear them now... "If handguns have been banned in Chicago since 1982, then why is one person in Chicago being murdered with a handgun every day?" If handguns have been banned for twenty eight years, how are felons getting them?

That is the $64,000 question isn't it? Well, let us go back to our kindergarten-age child and ask him/her shall we? Asking the typical five or six year old child, they might say something like this; "People who want to shoot and kill other people don't care about a gun ban." Or something similarly simple, which again seems to elude the convoluted mind of the Chicago politician.

If the 2nd Amendment gets restored at some level to the good people of Chicago, will it increase the number of murders in the city? Our kindergarten child would remind us that good people who can pass a background check to lawfully buy and carefully store a handgun in the home are not going to be involved in street violence, gang violence or in the out-of-control illegal narcotics trade.

So how do felons actually get the guns they use? Please keep in mind that the following sources of actual guns used during a crime come from a study of the general population and not the City of Chicago. Obviously in Chicago, the sources are different, because of their total handgun prohibition.

Source: (Table 9)

1.) 22.8% get the gun they use off the street or through a narcotics sale.

2.) 17.9% of felons borrowed or even rented the gun through a friend or family member.

3.) 13.5% bought or traded the gun from a family member or friend.

4.) 10.9% got the gun from a theft or burglary.

5.) 8.8% got the gun from a fence or 'black market' source.

6.) 7.8% got the gun from a family member or friend through other means not listed.

7.) 6.9% of the guns used came from an unknown source.

8.) 6.0% got the gun they used fraudulently from a retail store.

9.) 3.7% obtained the gun they used through a pawnshop.

10.) 1.1% got the gun from a flea market.

11.) 0.7% of the offenders, the lowest recorded source in the study, got it from a gun show.

Going back to our kindergarten age child, we might ask the following question. Of all of the above sources of firearms that were actually used by felons to commit crimes with, which of them would be greatly affected by a restoration of the right to keep and bear handguns?

The first source would not be affected at all. 22.8% of felons get their gun in an off-the-street sale or through a narcotics trade where a firearm is traded for drugs. A restoration of the right to keep and bear arms to the honest citizens of Chicago would not affect this highest source of illegal firearms.

The second and third sources would not be affected because good people do not let felonious friends borrow their guns. Neither do they sell them to felonious thugs. Nor do they trade firearms to friends of family members who are willing or inclined to commit crimes of violence. Good people are also unlikely to even have felonious friends.

The fourth source could possibly rise slightly as a result of an increase in firearms found during burglaries in the homes of good people who now would own guns. But we can help prevent that by imposing a $5,000 fine upon anyone convicted of a home burglary where a gun was stolen. The City of Chicago could also give a property tax break for gun owners who chose to purchase a strong gun safe and submit the receipt.

The fifth source, the black market would not be affected at all by law abiding citizens getting the right to purchase handguns again. Good people are not involved in the black market.

The sixth most common source demands a reference back to the 2nd and 3rd source. Good, law abiding people who pass background checks and obtain handguns are not willing to let family members or friends who are felons to have them.

The seventh source? We don't know what that even is. But we do know what it is not. It is not law abiding people who pass background checks selling or lending handguns to felonious thugs.

The eighth source is the 6% of the criminal element who obtain their firearms at retailers who lie and misrepresent themselves on documents and provide false identification. This source would likely not be affected very much at all by the restoration of the 2nd Amendment to the City of Chicago. One way to combat false identification is to require a current utility bill or paycheck stub proving that the prospective firearm purchaser actually lives at the residence indicated on the driver's license or pistol permit. In addition, the penalties for fraudulently attempting to purchase a firearm at retail should be followed through with instead of ignored, which they typically are.

The ninth, tenth and eleventh sources is through a pawnshop, flea market or gun show. Once again, proper identification and a federally required background check would help diminish this small source as well. It is federal law that if one is in the business of selling firearms, that they obtain a federal firearm license and perform the mandatory background check.

There are a small number of gun dealers, perhaps 1% or less who are careless about who they sell a firearm to. These disreputable dealers should be properly punished. These sources would likely remain largely unchanged due to the United States Supreme Court restoring the 2nd Amendment to the city of Chicago.

So in conclusion, because of the fact that law abiding gun owners do not commit crimes, do not lend, rent or trade firearms with known felons and do not peddle their cherished guns on darkened street corners, the people of the City of Chicago should not fear the restoration of gun rights due to the impending McDonald v Chicago case to be decided in June.

In fact, just the opposite is true. The people of Chicago will very likely begin seeing a significant reduction in the number of murders. Why? Our kindergarten child could tell you why. More law abiding, righteous and upstanding citizens and business owners having access to deadly force will make thugs think twice about committing a violent crime upon them or in their presence.

Even a child could figure these things out. How these basic truths evade the weakly firing synapses of Chicago politicians is a mystery that is best left to future generations to study. But for the time being, just be glad that the Bill of Rights is about to be restored to another American city.

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Oakland California Police Officers Killed

Recently in Oakland, California, four (4) police officers were killed in the same day, by the same felon. I forget the felon's name and that's probably a good thing. The felonious thug does not deserve to have his name repeated in public anyway. He deserves no fame whatsoever, so even if I could remember his name, I wouldn't mention it.

This thug had a very extensive criminal record. He was being investigated for a recent rape, which I believe he was responsible for, but maybe I shouldn't say that, because he was never convicted of it. He's now deceased, thank God.

It seems that he made a concious decision that he was not going back into a prison cell. Anyway, he was pulled over for a traffic violation and killed the two police officers on motorcycles that pulled him over. He then escaped on foot and hid himself in a local apartment building that he was familiar with and somehow illegally obtained a rifle therein.

When a tipster notified police of his location, a SWAT team assaulted the apartment and this dirtbag, piece of garbage, felon, killed two more police officers in the ensuing battle. My question in this entire matter is solely based on a single inquiry...


Really!!! What is the difficulty with keeping people behind prison walls who cannot or will not control themselves in a public place and at least make a valiant attempt at observing the Ten Commandments of God found easily in Exodus 20 of the Bible?

In May of 2008, a Philadelphia, PA police officer was killed responding to a bank robbery in progress. He was killed by one of three felonious thugs who were in the process of robbing a Bank of America branch.

The shooter, (I forget his name too) had such an alarming and phenomenally extensive criminal record that he should have been in prison until the year 2038. But he was released from prison on parole almost thirty (30) years early. Yes, almost thirty years EARLY.

The pathetic Mayor of Philadelphia, Nut-case, er I mean Nutter I think his name is, could only respond to the tragic murder of the police officer, by calling for a further erosion of the Second Amendment rights of the law abiding citizens of Philadelphia. Governor Rendell, also had a single-minded response of pointing the crooked finger of accusation at the illegally obtained firearm that the thug wielded. How inexpressibly pathetic...

The fault for the deaths of the five police officers I've mentioned above rests solely and completely on our very own broken criminal justice system. Yes, our criminal justice system is broken. Our justice system has collapsed and it has failed. It is not merely in the process of failing; it is now broken.

A few years ago, in a small town in Rhode Island, a homeowner awoke at around 2:00 AM to the sound of breaking glass in his kitchen. His wife called 911 as he grabbed his 12 gauge shotgun and ran to the sound of someone breaking in through his kitchen door.

As he approached the kitchen, the violent intruder was coming into the kitchen with a long-bladed screwdriver held above his head ready to attack the homeowner. The homeowner was given no choice but to fire to save himself from greivous injury. But what was the real surprise in this story?

The real surprise in this story is that the homeowner took a felon out of the public, where the criminal justice system could not. After the shooting was deemed justified, it came out in the local news that the felonious intruding numb-nut dirtbag had twenty nine (29) previous CONVICTIONS.

That's not 29 arrests. That's not 29 accusations. That's not 29 trials. That's not 29 prosecutions by the Attorney General's office. That's 29 convictions for serious crimes. Why are we allowing felons out of prison at this appalling rate? It seems that the only thing that can remove a felon from public is a load of buckshot or a SWAT team filling him full of holes and blasting off chunks of his oozing flesh.

What we absolutely must insist upon is that our criminal justice system works to keep people away from us who cannot control themselves in a public place. Our police officers have a hard enough job, without pulling over a subject for a traffic violation that was convicted of armed robbery just a few months before.

Many decades ago, there used to be many attempts at felons in prison who tried to escape. Do you remember some of those stories? They would try to dig themselves out of prison with a teaspoon over a period of months... Or they would devise some ingenious attempt to get smuggled out of prison in a laundry basket...

Well, dear readers, that mindset is no longer necessary. If a felon of convicted of his fourth armed robbery, third rape, second murder, seventh aggravated armed assault or whatever, all the felon has to do is sit and wait for a few months until some weak-kneed pansy judge or some disconnected and unconcerned parole board decides that he should be released to prey on the public once again.

Ladies and gentleman, the fault for America being the eighth (8th) most violent country in the world per capita, lies solely with two things.
1.) The felon's unwillingness to obey the Ten Commandments.
2.) The criminal justice system's seeming inability to keep him away from us.

The fault is not with the United States Constitution. It is not the Second Amendment that is responsible for armed violent crime. It's not the NRA that is at fault here. It's not the 'lack of common-sense gun laws'. The fault lies with the felon and with the people responsible for letting them out of prison, sometimes decades early.

When a state Attorney General, big city mayor, or State Governor points the crooked finger of unwarranted and false accusation at the Second Amendment or the NRA, we know the real fault for this situation lies in their mirror every morning they wake up. This is a responsibility that our elected officials should not be allowed to shirk.

If you want to learn more about my ideas on crime fighting, while preserving the words and spirit of the Constitution, go see my 'Share the Solution' page at, oh and while you're there, join the NRA too.

Marc Richardson
NRA Membership Recruiter
USCCA Recruiter

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

It's been a while...

First of all, please allow me a moment to apologize. Quite a few blogs and Web sites around the world have posted links to this blog and I'm very thankful for that. I must apologize to my readers, but especially to those fellow bloggers who have posted links to my blog in the past, because I have been so inactive.

I've been seriously busy as you might imagine. With the Heller Case coming out in the United States Supreme Court and me starting another five (5) Web sites, getting my eldest son off to college, cutting firewood for the coming winter and so much more, my free time each week is down to merely a couple of hours.

I have used Microsoft FrontPage 2000 to post everything to the Web for the past almost ten years. Since both Microsoft and my Web host have stopped supplying tech support and updated FrontPage extensions, I have bought a new Web site program, that has a rather higher learning curve to it. It is taking a bunch of time to recreate ten years worth of work and updating my content. Once everything is done, I'll be certain to post a blog announcing my new site(s).

My Web sites now include which will be a Web site for pool players, which is another hobby of mine. I played in the APA and was a skill level 6 for two years, but stopped playing in 2003 as a skill level 5 after one bad session.

Another two Web sites that I have registered and done some work on, (but not published) are and These two Web sites will be focused entirely on retail items that are between $1000.00 and about $5,000,000. There are almost no Web sites on the Internet that focus specifically upon items that are at least one thousand dollars in price and I thought this might be a good niche area to work in. I have not spent nearly enough time on them though. That's mostly because my focus has been elsewhere and I have no other excuse.

The other two remaining Web sites that I have registered and have in progress are Christian focused. They will be focused upon garnering prayer partners for Christian missionaries. They are and So to recap, I help to preserve the Second Amendment with, help promote Christianity with these two and try to sell $1000+ items online, with the previous two.

So, working on five other Web sites at the same time, while writing two new e-books and working another full time job to support my family, as well as writing my monthly newsletter called the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter, I am extremely busy. In short, my plate is quite full; overflowing may be a better description. Please forgive me for not posting to this blog in a while... :-)

I want to hit a few subjects with this post. First, I want to personally thank Associate Justice Antonin Scalia for his superbly brilliant defense of the Second Amendment in the Heller case. It could have been better, but not by much.

If you have not read and saved the Heller Case decision, I have posted it on my Web site in a .pdf file here:

You will of course need some program that reads .pdf files, such as the free Adobe Acrobat Reader, to read it and save it. Otherwise, I will try hard not to change the address above.

Secondly I would like to address the 2008 election. I was going to "protest-vote" this year and pull the lever for either Bob Barr or Ron Paul. I expected McCain to pick Governor Romney (R-MA)as his running mate, perhaps Tom Ridge, or maybe even Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). I would have been very unhappy with these guys.

I was a Massachusetts resident under Governor Romney and at the time, he was an anti-gun and pro-abortion governor. Both Ridge and Lieberman have stands on issues that I don't agree with and I could not have voted for them. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has never gotten any better than a "C" rating from the NRA and I believe his best rating with the Gun Owners of America was a "C-".

Then came Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK). I have so much in common with Sarah Palin that it's kind of scary. We were both born in 1964, she is just a few months older than me. We're both Life NRA Members and support hunting. In fact, I'm one of the top ten NRA Membership Recruiters for the entire United States for the summer of 2008.

We have both attended Assembly of God churches. Myself, Brockton Assembly of God and Grace Family Church Assembly of God Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) has attended Wasilla Assembly of God

Sarah Palin and I both have special needs children. Sarah and her husband Todd have Trig, who has Down's Syndrome and my wife and I have Matthew who has Carpenter's Syndrome and is completely non-verbal, with marked fine motor delays.

So, with all these things we have in common, as well as a passion for truth, balancing budgets, routing out corruption, NRA, same age, same church and both being proud parents of special needs kids, how could I not vote for McCain - Palin '08?

Okay, I better go now, I have to start making dinner for the kids...


Oh yeah, before I go, I would be remiss if I didn't ask you to rejoin, renew or join the NRA for the first time. The NRA cannot keep up the fight if just 4 out of every 100 American gun owners are members of the NRA.

The following link goes directly to the membership checkout page at the National Rifle Association. If you're already a Life NRA Member, you can give a gift of an NRA Membership here as well.

Bye for now. I'll try to post again soon, but I'm not making any promises... :-)

Thursday, November 29, 2007

District of Columbia V Heller

As I'm sure you know by now, the United States Supreme Court has decided to hear the District of Columbia V Heller case in early 2008. The case should begin in March and a decision on the case should come by sometime just before summer, perhaps in late June.
The District of Columbia asserts that the Second Amendment was solely intended to give the states a "right" to arm their own militias. Do they have a leg to stand on? Quotes of the Month

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to
James Madison, 1788

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, The Federalist Number 46

"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
James Madison, In his autobiography

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution June 8, 1789

"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."
The Second Amendment Gun Safety Tip of the Month

NEVER allow your children to mishandle a gun or play around with it, simply because you know it is unloaded. This is not an acceptable way of getting children familiar with firearms. A police officer in my in-laws family was killed by his son many years ago because he was allowed horseplay with an unloaded handgun.

He regretted his flawed training methods for about a minute or so between the time his son shot him in the chest and the moment he passed away. NEVER allow horseplay with an unloaded firearm at anytime. DO NOT MAKE THIS MISTAKE.

Please contribute this month if you have not done so before.

NRA Membership Recruiter Corner
Santa says "Give an NRA Membership as a gift this year, it's a great idea and it saves me some time."
As you may already know, is one of thousands of NRA Membership Recruiters across America. As an NRA Recruiter, I'm officially a subcontractor for the National Rifle Association of America and not an employee.

I make a small commission whenever you join, renew or give an NRA Membership as a gift. Please use the link above for all your NRA Membership needs. If your NRA Membership expires within four months, I encourage you to renew your membership early using my convenient link that lands right on the appropriate page at the National Rifle Association.

I have written a Web page with more information on membership in the National Rifle Association. It has a list of benefits as well as membership options and prices. For your convenience the above NRA Membership link is there as well.

P.S. Remember, my link goes directly to the NRA Membership check out page. Using my special link is a lot more convenient than trying to find the page yourself.
As of this issue of the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter, I've recruited 155 NRA Members through this link.

I want to be one of the top NRA Recruiters for the nine (9) state northeast district of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Please use my convenient links for all your NRA membership needs and pass it around to others.

Contributions to

Please use the following convenient link to securely use a credit card online to give a voluntary contribution:

To write me a personal check, it's almost as easy!

Write out a personal check made payable to Marc H. Richardson. Sign it and put it into a stamped envelope addressed to:

Marc H. Richardson
P.O. Box 424
Shapleigh, ME 04076-0424

My contributors have kept this informative Web site going for more than seven years. Become a contributor today... please? Active contributors are the only thing keeping online.

Thank you very much for your support!

$5.00 in contributions were received since the November 2007 issue of the Minuteman Monthly.

Item of the Month

An Gift Certificate is really the easiest way to do Christmas shopping. There's almost anything you can think of in more than forty (40) major categories, in fact there are literally millions of items. Use the following text link. I have an Amazon Gift Certificate banner on the left side of every page above the navigation bar at as well. Gift Certificates

Minuteman Monthly Newsletter Aiming Point

Does Washington D.C. have any chance of persuading the Supreme Court of the United States of America that the Founding Fathers meant to solely include a state's power to form its own militia within the Bill of Rights?

If you want a single word answer, it's NO!

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to
James Madison, 1788

The Founding Fathers very clearly intended the Bill of Rights to be a strict limit upon the power and reach of the government over the people of the United States. They knew well that every government seeks to gain more power and authority for itself over time. It was and still is the case. All governments eventually become too powerful, burdensome and overbearing until they are overthrown and reformed into something more tolerable by the people.

Does it make any sense that a people who came to America seeking freedom for their families, who carved a life out of a harsh wilderness and then shook off the yoke of oppressive British rule, would then give the "right" to bear arms only to those who were acting in an official capacity in an organized state militia? No, of course not. History proves this is simply not so. In fact, it is a laughable and frankly ridiculous assertion.

Does Washington D.C. claim that every women, all the physically disabled persons and every man over the age of 60, had no right to bear arms because they were not qualified for service in the state militias at the time? The mere notion is ludicrous and frankly insulting.

The very spark that began the Revolutionary War on April 19, 1775 was when British troops attempted to seize a store of arms and ammunition from the Massachusetts Militia. This is established historical fact and is hopefully still taught in most public schools. My own ancestor was in the Massachusetts Militia at the time.

The vast historical record itself is clear and convincing evidence that the Second Amendment was intended, like most of the Bill of Rights, to be a right of all individuals. They believed that the right of self defense was a right that belonged to all human beings, but they also knew that government always seeks more power and authority for itself wherever it can.

The District of Columbia asks America to believe that in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights the Founding Fathers gave individuals the rights to religion, speech, press and assembly. Then they took a hard turn and detoured into making sure the states had the power to create and maintain their own militias, then they took another sharp detour from that and continued on with more individual rights such as those to be secure against unreasonable searches, rights against self incrimination and the right to a trial by jury among others.

The Founding Fathers had no trouble differentiating between the powers of the states and the rights of the people in the Constitution. To claim that the term "the people" in the first, fourth and ninth amendments means the general population of the United States, while the same term used in the Second Amendment refers to the powers of a state is patently preposterous.

The Second Amendment says "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." and there seems to be no 'wiggle room' in that clear statement whatsoever. The United States Supreme Court over the years has 'found' 'rights' within the text of the Constitution that are not clearly present. For instance, in Roe V Wade, the SCOTUS found a right to lawfully end a pregnancy within some contrived 'right to privacy'.

In early 2008, the SCOTUS will have the chance to bring clarity and light to a right that is clearly visible in the Bill of Rights.

"The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)

The concept of an armed population keeping the peace is an Anglo-Saxon tradition that went back more than 800 years at the time. But did the Founding Fathers ever hint at the notion that only those who serve in an active state militia had the right to bear their private arms?


"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President. Source: Eighth Annual Message, November 8, 1808

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important."
Thomas Jefferson 1803

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
Samuel Adams

"...It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control...The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them."
Samuel Adams

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts -- U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

If the Founding Fathers ever entertained the idea that only men aged 17 to 60 who served in an active and organized militia had the right to bear arms, they kept it a very closely guarded secret and never spoke of it to each other and never wrote that idea down anywhere, at anytime.

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, The Federalist Number 46

However, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says that it's a "myth" that the Second Amendment provides for a right to own guns separate from a well-regulated militia. They say that it is a "myth" due in large part to a campaign of "misinformation" supported by those who are opposed to "common sense gun laws".

This "campaign of misinformation" that the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence speaks of, comes from people like myself who attempt to constantly remind Americans of what the Founding Fathers actually said concerning private ownership and carry of firearms. I would propose instead that the Brady Center is the one perpetuating a campaign of myth and misinformation, especially noting that NONE of the Founding Fathers ever mentioned that the Second Amendment applied only to those who are qualified and currently serving in an active state militia.

Nowhere in the historical record is it mentioned even once that arms were intended solely for those who were in active service in their own state's militia. It makes even less sense when you consider that there were no supermarkets back then. At the time, even elementary school aged children went out with their muskets to bring wild game to the dinner table.

The notion that the right to bear arms was strictly limited to participation in an organized state militia is feeble-minded foolishness at best. I can see where a small preschool child without any formal education could come up with such an idea. But for an adult who has hopefully been through at least a grade school education, one would have to be a complete moron to believe such an idea that goes wholly unsupported by American history and jurisprudence.

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large, is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton

Let us for a moment consider Alexander Hamilton's quote right above this text. Did he say the best we can hope for concerning our various state militias is that they be properly armed, or did he say "...the people at large..."?

Washington D.C.'s amusing and ludicrous contention that the second item in the Bill of Rights, directly after the right of religion, speech, press and assembly, includes only a state-run organized militia and the power to form one without federal authority, should have been laughed right out of court. It amazes me that someone with even a cursory and superficial education in American history could come up with such an absurd defense of Washington D.C.'s openly unconstitutional 31 year old handgun ban.

When we look at the Bill of Rights as a whole, the setting of the Second Amendment reinforces its individual nature. The Bill of Rights was almost entirely a declaration of individual rights, and the Second Amendment’s inclusion therein strongly indicates that it, too, was intended to protect personal liberty. The collective right advocates ask us to imagine that the First Congress situated a sui generis states’ right among a catalogue of cherished individual liberties without comment. We believe the canon of construction known as noscitur a sociis applies here. Just as we would read an ambiguous statutory term in light of its context, we should read any supposed ambiguities inthe Second Amendment in light of its context. Every other provision of the Bill of Rights, excepting the Tenth, which speaks explicitly about the allocation of governmental power, protects rights enjoyed by citizens in their individual capacity. The Second Amendment would be an inexplicable aberration if it were not read to protect individual rights as well.
Parker V District of Columbia

But, with all of American history on our side... With all of the Founding Fathers agreeing in concert with our view of the Second Amendment...anything can happen. Just look at what the SCOTUS decided in Kelo V New London and eminent domain...

What I expect will occur with D.C. V Heller is a very narrow and very carefully crafted decision that will return some form of Second Amendment rights back to law abiding residents of Washington D.C. but under voluminous restrictions and that's about it.

It's my belief that the United States Supreme Court will carefully tread on this decision so as to not completely eradicate gun control laws from the public arena. Many current gun control laws and many proposed gun control laws will be held up to the light emanating from this decision. I believe it will be so narrow and craftily evasive, that the issue of gun control will still be debated afterwards.

The U.S. Supreme Court has no interest in my opinion, to wipe 20,000+ gun control laws off the books in all fifty states. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen...

But what if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the Parker Case and gives the green light for states and cities to limit the right to keep and bear arms as they see fit? What if federal, state and local governments can then regulate private arms to their heart's content? Will we see confiscation of private arms without proper compensation? Will we see a breakdown of civil order? Will we see a further dismantling of the Bill of Rights? Will property rights then disappear? Think about it and then... JOIN OR REJOIN THE NRA TODAY

Maybe, just maybe if the U.S. Supreme Court tells the American people that they have no right to own and carry privately held firearms, the vast majority of inactive, do-nothing gun owners will get angry enough to have their voices finally heard. Then maybe 95% of gun owners will be actively supporting the Second Amendment, instead of 95% of them sitting on their hands as they do today.

Closing Comments
Thank you for taking the time out of your day to read the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter. I encourage you to pass it on.
You may use this newsletter as you see fit. You may post it, blog it, print it, forward it and publish it. The only thing I ask is that somewhere in your material, make sure the URL appears prominently.

Marc Richardson

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American..."Tench Coxe

Friday, July 27, 2007

Sources of Crime Guns and How To Curtail Them

Hello again, yes it's been a while, but I've been very busy trying build and maintain three other domains in addition to all by myself. Time does seem to get away from me when I'm too busy. I apologize for the lack of posts.

All too often I hear politicians say that "we've got to get guns off the streets", yet all the politicians can come up with is gun control regulations that have to be obeyed by lawful, upstanding and honest gun owners. Law abiding gun owners don't commit violent crimes with their guns. With that in mind, I think most gun control is aimed at the wrong people and I have some solutions that most politicians either have not thought about or have ignored on purpose.

You see, lawful and honest owners of firearms are not peddling their cherished firearm collections to crack-addicted miscreants on darkened street corners. However, with anti-gun politicians, anti-gun advocates and their misinformed rhetoric, you'd think that this was the case.

I've stated it in a previous blog, but I suppose it's time to post it again. The actual sources of firearms that are used during the commission of a violent crime are very important to examine. Crime control measures that are intended to diminish violent crime committed with firearms almost never focus on these specific sources, but rather are misdirected toward firearm ownership in general.

This of course is not only a clear violation of the Bill of Rights, but it's completely useless in terms of preventing violent crime. I believe that we can and should have policies in place that affect the actual sources of guns used during the commission of a crime, while leaving the honest gun owner completely out of the loop.

Okay Marc, you might say, where do criminals get their guns if they're not buying them from sincere and trustworthy gun owners? I'm so glad you asked... This is the focus of this latest blog post, so let's get right to the meat and potatoes and cut through the crapola shall we?

According to the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ), there was a study of 18,000 state and federal prisoners and the goal was to determine where they obtained the firearms that they used to commit crimes with. This study and other studies that have been done since then all come up with approximately the same percentages and sources. Here is what they found:

39.6% of guns used in a crime come from friends and family of the convict.

39.2% were obtained through illegal sources, such as on the street, through the illegal narcotics trade and through robberies and burglaries of homes and gun stores.

8.3% were purchased fraudulently through a legitimate and properly licensed retail outlet. Mostly these came through lying on required forms and paperwork and providing false identification. Only about one percent (1%) of all gun dealers sell guns to felons either negligently or knowingly.

3.8% of guns used during the commission of a crime come from pawn brokers for the same reasons as other retail outlets.

1.0% of them come from yard sales, flea markets or personal sales, where a gun owner unknowingly or knowingly sells a gun to a felon through a face-to-face sale without any kind of background check at all.

0.7% of guns used during a crime come from sales at a gun show.

The remaining 7.4% of guns that are used during the commission of a crime are unknown and could not be determined by the study. Logic dictates that this 7.4% that is unknown, is from illegitimate sources that cannot be tracked by state or federal entities and was not revealed by felon interviews.

When you closely examine this very important study, you can clearly see why gun control laws aimed at general firearm possession have almost no affect on the criminal mind or the felon's sources of firearms. Okay Marc, you've convinced me that you know what you're talking about. What can we do to diminish sources of guns actually used in criminal activity, while leaving the good guy out of the loop entirely?

The first thing we should consider is much harsher penalties for a family member or friend who knowingly provides a gun to a felon. Giving your brother, cousin, nephew or son a handgun, when you know that he's up to no good, should result in serious penalties that would make someone think twice about doing something that stupid.

Next, is "on the street" sales and sales through their illegal narcotics trade. Most of the time, from what I've seen, gun charges are dropped in favor of getting a more significant penalty for narcotics dealing. This is a colossal mistake in my opinion.

Most violent criminal activity comes from felons who are trying to get money for drugs or who are on drugs during the commission of the crime. Since most violent criminal activity is drug related in some way, these firearm charges should never be dropped, but should play a major role during the process of criminal charges and convictions.

Okay, next we have burglaries of homes and robberies of firearm dealers and sporting goods stores. These comprise the lion's share of the second 40% in my opinion. Firearms that result from burglaries and robberies are very quickly turned around and sold off to criminals who are willing or inclined to use them to do harm to others. Firearms that are stolen in this way are not held onto and hoarded by the burglars, they are quickly turned around for cash or narcotics.

What we can do to curtail this source is actually quite simple, but mostly overlooked by legislators and prosecutors. A five (5) year prison term should be imposed in addition to a home burglary, per firearm if a gun was taken. In addition, a robbery of a sporting goods store or firearm dealer would result in an additional penalty of five (5) years per firearm stolen. I.E. commit a robbery of a gun dealer and steal ten guns and you're in the clink for the next fifty years!! Period. Negotiation complete.

Ignorant teen aged neighborhood thugs would leave the home owner's gun collection right where it is and take only their other valuables if they knew each gun would result in a five year additional prison term. We MUST affect the criminal mind, as well as the actual sources of these "crime guns".

Next on the list is the fraudulent purchase of firearms at retail. These sources comprise 12.8% of guns actually used during criminal activity. If you add gun dealers, pawn brokers and gun shows together, you get 12.8%.

Again, about 99% of these retail purchases come from providing false identification and falsifying state and federally required documents. According to what I've read from the F.B.I., B.A.T.F.E .and other federal agencies, about one percent (1%) of Federal Firearm License (FFL) holders and gun retailers either knowingly sell to felons or do not run names properly through the National Instant Check System (NICS) or do not keep good transaction records.

Some anti-gunners insinuate that most retail firearm purchases from felons happen through this very small portion of rogue gun dealers. But real-world statistics from federal agencies indicate that only 1% of all gun dealers do not care who they sell guns to. Even though this is a small percentage of gun dealers, these scoundrel dealers should be punished appropriately.

The attempt by felons to provide false identification at retail to purchase a gun can be reduced by better firearm retailer identification policy and procedure. Most gun owners can easily provide two forms of picture I.D., such as a driver's license, concealed carry permit or an employer-issued I.D. card. There should be no excuse for providing a firearm at retail to a violent felon.

Lastly and least important on the list are firearm sales that are completed at gun shows. Of all guns that are used during the commission of a crime, only seven tenths of one percent (0.7%) come from gun shows. There has been much undue attention focused upon gun shows as of late, while 99.3% of actual crime guns come from other sources. This statistic to me is maddening!

The anti-gun crowd seem to claim that gun shows are arms bazaars for violent felons and this is simply not the case at all. In addition to that, the term "Gun Show Loophole" is thrown around as if everyone knows what they're talking about.

The truth is that there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole". If a citizen is in the business of selling firearms, they have to have a Federal Firearm License (FFL). FFL holders are required by law to run a prospective firearm purchaser through the National Instant Check System. In states that require a firearm identification card or concealed carry permit to purchase a gun, a valid permit is required in place of the NICS check.

Now that I've addressed how to curtail the actual sources of "crime guns", lets move onto another subject. Let's promote legislation that will affect the criminal mind. Most legislation promoted or supported on the state or federal level is not aimed at the violent felon, but is rather aimed at general firearm possession and sales by the public, in my opinion, this is the definition of insanity.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Some evidence shows that this is not really a quote from Benjamin Franklin, but it's wise just the same. Major gun control legislation has been on the books since the National Firearms Act of 1934 and gun control has not diminished rates of violent crime at all.

If anything, rates of violent crime since the promotion of gun control laws has increased and not decreased. In my opinion, that's because gun control laws are focused on guns and not criminal activity, the actual sources of "crime guns" or the mind of the violent felon.

The violent drug addicted felon, serial rapist, gang member or hot-headed convict is already committing the worst crimes known to mankind and they do not concern themselves with laws that regulate firearm possession, transfer, storage and carry.

That is why we have to work on diminishing the actual sources of "crime guns". But diminishing these sources is not where we should stop. We also have to affect the decision making process of the criminal mind as well.

Just as we should add five (5) years onto a burglary charge when a gun is stolen, we should also add prison time onto a violent criminal act if a firearm was possessed, brandished, discharged or used to injure a victim while committing a crime.

Adding civil penalties and/or prison time onto a criminal act if a firearm was used in any way, would affect the criminal's decision making process and leave the law-abiding gun owner completely out of the loop of crime-control efforts.

We should add:

  • 5 years of prison if a gun was possessed during the commission of an aggravated assault, rape, robbery or murder.
  • 10 years if the gun was brandished.
  • 15 years if the gun was discharged.
  • 20 years if the gun was fired and used to injure or kill.

The next thing I would like to address in this blog post is just as important. First, we need to focus upon diminishing the actual proven sources of where "crime guns" come from. Secondly, as I've noted, we need to specifically punish the law-breaker for choosing a gun to aid him/her in committing the crime.

Thirdly, I would like to discuss what has come to be known by "Three Strikes and You're Out".

Recently in Connecticut, a family was devasted by Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes. They were charged with six capital felony counts in the deaths of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters during a home invasion. They previously were charged with assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery and arson.

These two vicious criminals have criminal records that stretch all the back to their youth. One of them had more than twenty (20) criminal convictions on his record. That's more proof that our criminal justice system is not merely in need of repair. Our criminal justice system is broken.

Think about it for a moment.... If our criminal justice system was completely broken and useless to society, what symptoms would we see? I think we would see violent criminals with a dozen or even two dozen serious crimes walking around free. Am I wrong?

A few years ago near my home, a Rhode Island homeowner was forced to shoot a violent criminal in his home. The violent felon broke into a home, made threats with a deadly weapon and the homeowner grabbed a personally owned firearm and shot the intruder dead in his tracks.

But that's not the most shocking and troubling thing at all. The most troubling and frankly appalling part of that story is that the intruder had twenty nine (29), yes that's not a typo, twenty nine serious criminal convictions.

Enough is enough. I've had it! I know you've had it as well. The chances are that the reader of my blog posts agrees with me. I'm "up to my eyeballs" in frustration and unmitigated anger that there are violent criminal thugs walking around free with literally dozens of criminal convictions.

Do you know who first pushed the "Three Strikes and You're Out" idea on a national scale? I'll bet you don't know that it was the National Rifle Association. That's right, the NRA was the first group on a national scale that pushed "Three Strikes..." legislation.

I don't know about y'all, but I'm frustrated and angry beyond words that our criminal justice system is so impotent, subverted and broken that there are convicts prowling in our neighborhoods with more than two dozen criminal convictions.

In the story above, where the family in Connecticut was invaded and the wife and two daughters were killed, the convicts were literally hiding in the bushes outside the family home for days studying the movements of the family as if they were lions in the African tundra stalking an f'ing zebra!!!


It's time to pass both national and state-wide legislation that allows ONLY three murders, rapes, robberies, burglaries or aggravated assaults and then it's prison for the rest of their natural lives.

So to briefly recap this blog post.... We must focus on diminishing actual sources of crime guns, add specific penalties to a crime if a gun was chosen to commit the crime with and we must keep habitual violent thugs behind bars as if they were vicious animals in an f'ing human zoo.

It's about time that we get serious about real crime control and leave the failed, impotent and unconstitutional gun control laws to rot in the graveyard of terrible ideas.

Thanks for listening! Until next time...


Sunday, January 28, 2007

Why Gun Control Does Not Work

Minuteman Monthly Newsletter
Issue 67
February 2007

Welcome to this issue of the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter. This is the monthly communication from my Web site at Thank you for reading this month's issue and for passing it on to a friend.

Major U.S. gun control legislation has been around since before the National Firearm Act of 1934. This act put strict restrictions, taxes and fees upon short-barreled shotguns and fully automatic machine guns. There has been more than 25,000 local, state and federal laws and ordinances regulating firearm ownership, carry and transfer ever since.

Why then, with 25,000 gun laws, don't we have the safest country in the world? Why hasn't gun control put a stop to violent crime committed with firearms? To find out why gun control is a terribly ineffective method of reducing crime, not to mention that it's unconstitutional...
Read On... Quotes of the Month

"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."James Madison, In his autobiography

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President

"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."James Monroe (1758-1831), 5th US President

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances." Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98 Gun Safety Tip of the Month

The gun safety tip of the month for this issue of the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter is to positively identify a threat in your home as a true threat before you draw and fire upon them.
Many hundreds of people have been shot by mistake in a home because the homeowner misidentifies a threat. Unannounced sleepovers from unfamiliar guests have resulted in tragedy. Don't let this happen to you.

Perhaps a friend of your teenage son and your son decided it would be best for him to sleep at your house tonight without telling you or your wife... You wake up to find a total stranger in your home trying to find the bathroom... Think about it...

Never assume that a person you don't know in your home is there to do you harm and is deserving of a .45 ACP in the chest. Positively identify a threat as a true threat before utilizing your basic human rights of self defense.

NRA Membership Recruiter Corner
As you may already know, is one of thousands of NRA Membership Recruiters across America. As an NRA Recruiter, I'm officially a subcontractor for the National Rifle Association of America and not an employee.

I make a small commission whenever you join, renew or give an NRA Membership as a gift. Please use the link above for all your NRA Membership needs.

I have written a Web page with more information on membership in the National Rifle Association. It has a list of benefits as well as membership options and prices. For your convenience the above NRA Membership link is there as well.

P.S. Remember, my link goes directly to the NRA Membership check out page. Using my special link is a lot more convenient than trying to find the page yourself.
As of this issue of the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter, I've recruited 92 NRA Members through this link.

Contributions to

Please use the following convenient link to securely use a credit card online to give a voluntary contribution:

To write me a personal check, it's almost as easy!
Write out a personal check made payable to Marc H. Richardson. Sign it and put it into a stamped envelope addressed to:

Marc H. Richardson
P.O. Box 424
Shapleigh, ME 04076-0424

My contributors have kept this informative Web site going for seven years. Become a contributor today... please?

Minuteman Monthly Newsletter Aiming Point

Okay, here it is Mayor Bloomberg, Mayor Daley and many, many others in local, state and federal positions of authority who believe that gun control laws are effective means of reducing rates of violent crime. If only they can find the right type of gun restriction...

There have been, according to most experts, more than 25,000 local, state and federal laws, regulations and ordinances passed by legislative bodies in the United States alone. The Massachusetts Police Chief's Guide to Gun Control Laws in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is larger than War and Peace and The Lord of the Rings put together.

Why then, with so much gun control, is Massachusetts the eighteenth (18th) most violent state in America? It's the same case in Maryland, California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey.

These gun control capitols of America should be the safest states of all, but they're not.

Maryland has countless firearm restrictions and regulations that apply to lawful gun owners, yet Maryland has the third (3rd) highest rate of violent crime in the country. The law abiding gun owners of California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey are equally frustrated, as their states rank 10th, 11th, 21st and 26th in violent crime per capita, but make gun owners jump through hoops merely to exercise their rights under the Constitution.

The states with the least restrictions upon gun owners are actually among the safest. For instance, the upper New England states of New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine are 47th, 48th and 49th in per capita rates of violent criminal acts respectively. Yet, gun control up here in the northeast corner of the nation means using both hands and a proper and consistent grip.

In Maine, I can carry a handgun openly in public, without a permit, although nobody really does it anymore and many towns have implemented ordinances against it. Concealed carry is more acceptable to the general public in these states. Heck, in Vermont, you can carry a concealed firearm under your clothing without any permit required as long as you're of age to do so. But these three states have among the lowest per-capita violent crime rates in the country.

If gun control was so darn important in reducing rates of violent crime committed with handguns, shouldn't Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire with the state motto "Live Free or Die", be among the most violent instead of the safest?

I'm not saying that if Washington D.C., Detroit and Los Angeles just adopted Vermont's firearm laws, that everything would be fine. But I am saying that at the very least, there is no correlation whatsoever between harsh firearm ownership regulations and low rates of violent crime.

If you take a close look at the state of Alaska for instance, you'd see that they have the highest rates for forcible rapes per capita of any other state, but in Alaska one can lawfully carry a concealed firearm without a permit as in Vermont.

So very few firearm restrictions, doesn't necessarily mean very little violent crime either. Alaska has very few firearm ownership restrictions, but is the 7th most violent state in the nation, mainly because of its colossal number of forcible rapes.

In Washington D.C., handgun ownership has been banned since 1976, but they have the highest rate of violent acts per 100,000 citizens of almost any area in the world.

Gun control legislation as a method of curtailing rates of violent crime has completely failed. The evidence is very clear on at least that point.

Why has gun control completely failed as a method of reducing violent crimes committed with firearms?

The easy answer is actually pretty darn simple:

Violent criminals and those who are willing and/or inclined to commit rape, robbery and murder with a firearm, are already disobeying some of the most basic laws of humanity and are not concerned that they're also breaking a law that regulates firearm possession. That's the easy and quick answer.

The somewhat more involved answer is this:

Violent criminals do not obtain their firearms from properly licensed sporting goods retailers, while filling out all the forms correctly and with proper identification.

According to the United States Department of Justice, around twelve percent (12%) of all criminals who actually used a gun in the commission of a crime, got their gun from any retail source.

About 88% of violent criminals who committed a violent crime with a firearm, got their gun outside of the reach of any firearm regulations. Firearm sales and acquisitions can only be controlled by a government entity or regulation when you have an upstanding licensed retailer and an honest and law abiding citizen as parties in the sale. When neither is involved in the transfer of possession of a firearm, the sale falls outside the reach of state or federal gun control policy.

That makes perfectly good sense doesn't it? When the buyer or the seller have no interest in abiding by local, state and federal law, the transfer of possession of the firearm cannot be controlled by any government policy. Even the biggest liberal secular progressive dimwit can understand that...

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, about 40% of violent criminals who used a gun to commit a crime with, got their guns from family and friends. They were either voluntarily given to them by their family and friends or stolen from them. The study does not differentiate between the two.

Approximately another 40% got their firearms from street purchases, through the illegal narcotics trade and from burglaries and robberies. So we can clearly see that about 80% of violent felons got their guns from sources that lie outside the control of government policy. Of the remaining 20%, here's the breakdown:

8.3% came from retail outlets. Such as major retailers, sporting goods specialty stores and from gun dealers. These purchases were mostly made through falsifying documentation, providing false identification and a small number (about 1%) of licensed (FFL) gun dealers who disregard the National Instant Check System (NICS), don't keep good BATFE records or who knowingly sell to felons.

6.2% came from undetermined sources, but were probably outside the reach of gun control laws, simply by the evidence that they were classified as undetermined.

3.8% of crime guns came from pawn shops, where again, there was false identification, lying on required forms or a very small number (1%) of pawn shop owners who did not follow proper record keeping or NICS procedures.

1.0% came from flea markets and yard sales through private transfers of firearms directly to violent criminals.

About 0.7% of guns actually used to commit a crime came from gun shows. Yet, with this small sliver of seven tenths of one percent, gun shows seem to be the latest focus by dimwitted gun control fanatics. Gun control fanatics it seems to me are not really the brightest lights on the chandelier, if you know what I mean...

Looking closely at the actual sources of guns that were actually used in criminal acts, we can pretty easily see why gun control laws don't work to reduce acts of violent crime. With full realization that violent criminal thugs do not concern themselves with breaking gun laws, why are many in government touting them as effective?

To recap, here is why gun control doesn't work and only serves to diminish the Bill of Rights and harass and burden honest gun owners.

***Violent criminal thugs do not observe and heed laws that regulate firearm possession, because they're already committing worse crimes and pay no heed to such laws. In addition, they know that most often, illegal firearm possession or firearm possession during the commission of a crime is plea-bargained away or dropped entirely by the District Attorney's office.

***Violent criminal thugs do not customarily get their guns from properly licensed retail outlets where gun control policy is followed through. Only the law-abiding are effected by such laws.

***Violent criminal thugs fabricate documentation, lie, cheat and provide false identification when they get their guns from retailers, pawn shops and others sources.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."Thomas Jefferson

Since laws that regulate firearm possession, ownership and carry affect only those who obey the law in the first place, what can we do? What steps can we take to diminish guns being used during the commission of a violent crime? How can we diminish gun-crime, without placing any undue burden upon the lawful and honest gun owner?

How can I/We stand here and thrust the Bill of Rights into the faces of politicians, without offering viable and useful alternatives? Violent crimes committed with firearms need to be curtailed somehow. It's indeed a serious problem in many of our larger cities and something needs to change.

It's mostly a social problem, a lack of good fathers, terrible role models, a lack of general public morality and empty churches. It's certainly not the fault of lawful and honest gun owners...
Can we curtail these incidents where firearms are used to commit crimes, while leaving the lawful and honest gun owner out of the loop? I think we can!

We must diminish criminal access to firearms and introduce policies that really affect the criminal mind. These are some steps we can take to actually affect criminal usage and access to firearms, while leaving legitimate and honest gun owners completely out of the loop.

Add significant civil (fines) and criminal penalties onto a friend or family member of a violent felon who knowingly provides a firearm to him/her.

Add five (5) years of federal prison (per firearm) onto any burglary or robbery charge where a firearm is stolen. This additional five year of real prison per stolen firearm must be mandatory and should not be dropped or plea-bargained away. (I.E. Six guns stolen from a home burglary would get thirty years in prison (6X5=30))

Add significant civil (fines) and criminal penalties onto any violent crime of rape, robbery or murder, where a firearm was used or carried as a weapon. (I.E. 5 additional years for gun possession during the commission of a violent crime, 10 additional years for brandishing, 15 additional years for firing it and 20 additional years for personal injury to the victim with the firearm discharge.) We must make criminals think twice about choosing a firearm to commit a crime with.

Prosecute felons who attempt to purchase a firearm through a properly licensed retailer and get caught. It's been illegal for felons to own firearms since the Gun Control Act of 1968, but they're rarely ever punished for the attempt to purchase one. If you choose to be a felon, you have to realize that you're giving up certain freedoms when you commit a crime of violence. As Benjamin Franklin said "[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Legislators have to refocus crime control efforts and aim at the felon and the felon's access to firearms and not at firearms themselves or those who lawfully own them.
Concentrating efforts to reduce violent crime upon the violent criminal thug and not the firearm they obtained, would go a long way toward fixing this persistent problem.
Hey Bloomberg, Menino and Daley! Are you listening?

Government must take more careful aim at diminishing actual sources of firearms that are used in crime. They must also promote efforts that affect the criminal mind by increasing penalties for choosing a firearm to commit a crime with, while not providing a way out for these increased penalties. If we're going to be serious about reducing violent crime, we must do away with the plea-bargaining of illegal firearm charges. Most often these gun charges are dropped in a criminal case and violent felons know it....

Let's look at the problem even more simply shall we? Honest and upright gun owners commit no crimes, while violent criminal thugs don't obey laws that regulate firearms. That's the whole reason behind the failures of gun control laws to affect violent crime.

Even the most ignorant dimwit liberal can understand that...

Shine the floodlight upon the violent felon and not the gun in his hand. How's that for being simple and focused?!?!?!

It is only the slow-witted legislator and obtuse leftist who thinks that a hardened violent criminal thug will obey a law regulating firearm possession.

Oh wait a minute, I do have another answer! Let's stop voting dimwit blockheaded anti-gun legislators into public office!

"When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, "just men who will rule in the fear of God." The preservation of [our] government depends on the faithful discharge of this Duty; if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded. If [our] government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine Commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the Laws."Noah Webster 1758-1843

Closing Comments

Thank you for taking the time out of your day to read the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter. I encourage you to pass it on.
You may use this newsletter as you see fit. You may post it, blog it, print it, forward it and publish it. The only thing I ask is that somewhere in your material, make sure the URL appears prominently.

Thank you,

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Thoughts and Solutions on School Shootings

Here is a copy of my latest newsletter through my Web site. Enjoy!

Minuteman Monthly Newsletter
Issue 64
November 2006

Our hearts go out to the Amish people of Lancaster County Pennsylvania, as well those victims in the other very troubling school shootings in recent weeks. As law abiding, honest and upright gun owners, we're mad as hornets when some evil creep takes advantage of innocent students in school and decides to take their young lives away. It's my belief that losing a child is one of the hardest things human beings endure.

School shootings are not an epidemic as some people in the anti-gun crowd don't hesitate to say. School shootings are still rare. They began to rear their ugly heads with the Pearl High School shooting in Pearl Mississippi in 1997. As of this date, only two school shootings have been stopped prematurely. Both of these were stopped by armed citizens protecting innocent life.

In the Pearl Mississippi school shooting, it was an Assistant School Principal who quickly exited the school to retrieve a firearm from his pick-up truck that was parked off of school grounds. At the Appalachian School of Law in 2002, the shooting was brought to a quick stop by an armed college student.

What can we do to help prevent and deter school shootings? That's what this month's newsletter is all about. It's gonna be a long one, so go get a cup of coffee.


"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."Thomas Jefferson(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;..." Thomas Jefferson letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…" Saint George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D

"Posterity, you will never know what it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it."John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) Sixth President of the United States.

"Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America . . . America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."Alexis de Tocqueville

"All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining of happiness and safety."George Mason(1725-1792), drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, ally of James Madison and George WashingtonSource: First Draft, Virginia Declaration of Rights


Check out the expiration date on your NRA Membership card. If your NRA Membership expires within the next six months, you can renew now and save the National Rifle Association much needed funds.

You can save the NRA money by renewing your membership early, saving on postage and membership renewal notices. Using my special NRA Membership link below, you will go directly to the NRA Membership page, saving you from having to find it yourself.

Save yourself $10.00 by using my link. One year memberships are normally $35.00, but they're reduced to $25.00 for a limited time.

Save money and save time! Renew with this link today!

If you're still a bit squeamish about using a credit card online, I have an NRA Membership form that you can print out and mail with a personal check.

P.S. Please print out this NRA application and distribute them to family, friends and your local sporting goods retailers!!


If you're simply hiding a loaded firearm in your home, without taking the time to properly teach safe firearm handling to your children or grandchildren, you could be very sorry that you went this route.

Certainly one should always store firearms appropriately, but the three rules of safe gun handling should also be carefully taught as well.

Teaching young ones about firearms and how to handle them is a much better way to prevent accidents than hiding a loaded firearm. Don't make guns in your home a "forbidden fruit" either. If you tell the kids "these guns are off limits", they will most assuredly seek them out when you're not around.


Please visit my "Affiliate Links" page. I now have sixty seven (67) affiliates. I make a small commission if you purchase anything from the advertisement banners on this page. You'll find some of your favorite retailers there like,,,,, and much more.

Hint: Please use this "Affiliate Links" page for your Christmas and Hanukah shopping!

Something has to be done about school shootings. Nobody with a sound mind will argue with me about that fact. We must develop a policy to deal with this very disturbing trend.

Obviously gun control laws are not an answer. However, it seems to me that more gun control schemes are the only thing that government officials can come up with. A gun control law will never stop a school shooting. The perpetrator(s) have already made the decision to commit a more serious crime than a firearm violation anyhow. Often, as in most of the cases, the shooter has decided to end their lives during the event anyway. No law can prevent that, gun control or otherwise.

Gun-free school laws have only served to embolden those twisted minds of mass murderers and thugs who are counting on being in complete control of an unarmed school.

In one of the latest evil and twisted school shootings in the Amish school in Lancaster County Pennsylvania, the shooter had no previous criminal history and no documented history of mental problems. He would have passed any background check. Nobody knows how he was able to hide his demented tendencies. Even his own wife seemed to have been clueless as to the reasons for his evildoing and subsequent suicide.

We should wake up to the fact that there is a moral and spiritual vacuum in the lives of many American youth. Many of them have never seen the inside of a church or synagogue. They have no clue that the very foundation of freedom was forged using morality and religion as an essential ingredient.

Many young people today lack the strong moral convictions that teach us the difference between right and wrong. They have no remorse or twinge of guilt that should be telling them not to do wrong things. They will view more than 1,000 shootings and murders on television and in the movies each year. What kind of future will we have if things do not turn around?

What can we do about school shootings? What federal, state and school policies should we be looking at? I have a three-pronged approach to the problem. I realize that probably only the readers of this issue of the Minuteman Monthly Newsletter will hear about my approach, but I cannot keep silent about it any longer.

My hope is that you forward this newsletter onto others and maybe my approach will get the attention I believe it deserves. If you think my approach to this perplexing problem is worthy, then please feel free to pass it on. Let's get right to the first of my three prong answer to school shootings.


First, let's address a factor that seems to be very common in many school shootings. The subject of bullying in school is the first prong of my three pronged response to school shootings.

Bullying should not be tolerated in the least little bit. Most incidents of bullying in school would result in a criminal charge and arraignment by law enforcement and the District Attorney's Office, if it occurred outside of school and after high school graduation.

If bullying is allowed in school and goes largely unpunished, we are making our schools a safe harbor for criminal acts of violence. If nothing is done about bullying in school and there is no effective school policy to deal with it, we are condoning it by our inaction.

Think about it for a moment. If you were at your place of employment and an eighteen year old new employee pushed you, harassed you, stole your belongings or assaulted you verbally or otherwise, law enforcement would intervene and criminal charges of assault and battery, criminal threatening, larceny and maybe more would be leveled at this young punk.

But earlier, while in high school, this same punk gets away with this very same conduct, Scot-free!?!? I have personally witnessed vicious incidents of bullying in school, while timid teachers looked the other way, not wanting to get involved or hurt themselves. Two family members of mine that were public school teachers have been injured, while breaking up such bullying incidents.

Bullying in school should never be treated as if it's just a "kid thing" or some kind of right of passage into adulthood. Our school systems are the very cradle of future American civilization and should be treated as such. There should be no room for school violence... none, none whatsoever.

When school bullying occurs, a meeting should be called quickly involving the bully and his/her parent(s), the bullying victim and his/her parent(s), a school administrator, a uniformed police officer and a volunteer student body representative, possibly a class president or vice president or other responsible student of good repute.

Each and every participant should have a minimum two (2) minute opportunity to speak in order to resolve the problem, if they choose not to speak during this two minute segment, there should be complete silence during this two minute interval.

This should go a long way toward exposing the bully and diminishing these abhorrent incidents. In most cases, I would imagine, that the bully's parents have no clue how badly their child is behaving in the first place. This policy should be adopted in every school and practiced as early as first grade. School bullying should not be brushed under the carpet as a right of passage for adolescents. School bullying is a factor in school shootings and it's not "just a kid thing" any longer.


I know this second avenue of focus is controversial. Even many long-time Second Amendment warriors are not completely convinced that this is a good idea, but please hear me out.

For the most part, people who line up against such proposals, with all due respect, have no clue what they're talking about. The notion that a gun control law will prevent a school massacre from occurring is an empty-headed and Utopian view at best. Thinking that a law against bringing a firearm to school will prevent someone from doing so, when they've already decided that they will die in the process is simply sticking your head in the sand.

The legislator or school official who believes that another metal detector will prevent a Columbine-style shooting, is at best oblivious and at worst, they're stunningly ignorant. It's exactly the same as a restraining order. A restraining order is only as good as the person who willingly obeys it. A pink sheet of paper forbidding contact with an estranged spouse in a domestic violence situation, is useless if the restrainee doesn't care about violating it.

Likewise, a student who is determined to commit a school massacre, will not be slowed down by a metal detector at all. They won't even slow down long enough to notice the flashing red lights and audible alarm go off!!

In Israel, there was a terrible school shooting by a group of Palestinian terrorists many years ago, where dozens of Israeli children perished. Since then, Israeli teachers and school administrators have been allowed to be armed to defend the school if necessary. Why not us too?

Firearms have not been allowed in school in the United States since January 27, 1991 and the law has not been obeyed by any school shooter yet. Anyone who thinks a school full of unarmed adults and unarmed children are completely safe because it's unlawful to have a gun in school is a total idiot.

I have not even made a case for the fact that a gun-free school zone runs contrary to the words and spirit of the Second Amendment itself. The words "...shall not be infringed." don't leave any wiggle room for a gun-free school. That being said, let me continue...

For one to obtain a CCW or concealed weapons permit or whatever your state may call it, you must ordinarily undergo a strict background check and demonstrate a knowledge of safe firearm handling and most often satisfactorily complete a firearm safety course.

Those Americans who choose to legally carry a concealed handgun in a public place are among the most well-behaved and most level-headed and responsible citizens I know. That has always been the case. Concealed firearm permit holders are among the most upstanding and honest people. That has been my experience through more than thirty (30) years of being involved in shooting and being an NRA Certified Firearm Instructor and NRA Membership Recruiter. Disagree with me if you wish, but I speak from experience on this.

The teacher or school administrator who has passed safety and marksmanship training, as well as a complete and thorough background check, should be allowed to carry that handgun concealed on their person during school hours if they freely and responsibly choose to do so. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever that this should not be allowed, none whatsoever.

School administrators and teachers should be allowed to defend their school in the case of a student gone mad, or some evil adult who ties up young girls and attempts to execute them. When one of these terrible scenarios occurs, let's go over what happens shall we?

During a tragic school shooting, somebody calls the local police department to respond to the school. School officials call upon members of law enforcement, who are fully trained men and women that carry firearms. Hello? Does anyone else see the irony in this?

The school calls upon someone to remedy the situation, who carries a gun and has been trained and certified to do so. Certainly, members of law enforcement have a higher level of training for such things, but why can't an armed teacher or armed school administrator be a first responder as well? Most often, by the time law enforcement arrives, analyzes the situation and takes charge of it, much of the damage has already been done and often the tragedy is already over.

The bottom line is that we must allow fully trained school employees to carry a concealed firearm in school as long as they are licensed to do so and keep the firearm under their control at all times. It doesn't matter to me if it's the district superintendent or a part-time janitor. They must be allowed to defend innocent students and that's the bottom line. Next topic...


Please visit my "Affiliate Links" page and do your shopping from these convenient links.


Preparing students and training them properly on how to handle a school shooting and what to do during one, is the third and final focus on this topic.

Let's suppose for a moment that a disgruntled, misled, angry and armed student enters a local police station with a gun instead of a school cafeteria or library. Would the fully trained law enforcement personnel inside obediently line up and agree to be tied to each other with plastic strapping? Of course not! Then why the heck would we tell students to obey a violent, gun toting fellow student or adult? This is simply not common sense.

If members of law enforcement would not obey the commands of an armed student, then why should we tell the students to do so? Our past experiences with tragic shootings in school clearly tell us that obeying the commands of an armed student is very deadly and should be the very last thing students do.

We should train and prepare students to deal appropriately with armed and violent students. Yes, I know that school shootings are very rare occurrences. They happen on average less than once a year, but as of late, these tragic events are being repeated to the point that we should prepare students for such an event however unlikely it may be.

As we all know, a firearm is simply a device that discharges ammunition in a straight line. A gun by itself, is never a threat. A gun by itself is never a danger at all. A gun pointed in a safe direction is not dangerous to anyone. This can be a difficult concept to comprehend for those who are not completely familiar with how guns work.

Allow me to repeat my previous statement, because it's essential to understand this third focus. A firearm pointed in a safe direction is not dangerous!!! That being said, let's explain what I think the elements of proper student incident preparation and training should consist of.

Listen carefully now and make sure you grasp these concepts. First, the armed student should not be given freedom of movement throughout the school. When an armed student first appears in a room, library or cafeteria, student bystanders, adults and teachers should immediately take away the shooter's freedom of movement. This may be a difficult decision, but anything else is probably more deadly.

Anything and everything should be thrown at the student without any hesitation whatsoever. Scissors, staplers, lunch trays, laptop computers, books, overhead projectors and anything else that's not nailed down. Then immediately, when the armed student is confused, disoriented, possibly injured and put on the defensive, he/she should be attacked so that the shooter's freedom of movement is brought to a stop.

The shooter should immediately be brought to the floor and the shooter's arm and hand that is controlling the firearm, must be strictly controlled as soon as physically possible. Once again, I'll repeat myself. As soon as possible tackle the shooter to the floor and "pigpile" on top of him, restricting his freedom of movement and absolutely as soon as possible, control the direction that the barrel of the gun is pointing.

If the armed student is brought down and the direction that the barrel is pointing in can be strictly controlled, the situation can be very quickly snuffed out. Once the direction the gun is pointing can be controlled, the armed student is nearly harmless.

Students should be trained not to necessarily disarm the student, unless it can be done safely. Disarming a violent person who is in control of a firearm is not easy without lots of training.

Short of actually relieving the shooter of the gun, the shooter's movement can be severely restricted and the direction that the gun is pointing should be able to be controlled if enough bystanders participate.

This concept of preventing the shooter's freedom of movement and controlling where the gun is pointing, is nearly opposite of what has been done in the past. In the past, students have tried to hide themselves, while leaving the armed student free to roam around and fire at will, unmolested and unchallenged. In the past, students have obediently lined themselves up in a straight line to be tied up and shot at the shooter's leisure.

What is crystal clear, is that obeying the shooter's commands and giving him complete freedom of movement is exactly the wrong thing to do. You see, the armed student is going into the situation thinking that he will be in complete command. He's thinking that he will be free to roam around at will and give payback to whoever or whatever his reasons for shooting are.

In my opinion, the student should be disoriented and immediately put on the defensive, he should then be attacked and subdued immediately, restricting his freedom of movement and the barrel of the gun should be pointed in a safe direction as soon as possible. Then and only then should they wait for law enforcement to arrive, hopefully within a few short minutes.

Allow me a few moments to recap my three points of focus. We must not allow bullying in school to continue. Bullying should never be viewed by school officials as some kind of right of passage for adolescents. Develop an effective anti-bullying campaign as I've briefly outlined and begin it early in grammar school.

Secondly, teachers and school administrators who are licensed and qualified to have a concealed firearm on their person and under their personal control in a public place, should not be prohibited from doing so while at school, if they so choose.

Lastly, we should fully prepare students and have them rehearse responding to a shooting at school. The shooter should be attacked immediately with thrown objects of any size or weight. Then the armed student should be brought down to the floor and his freedom of movement taken away from him. Then as soon as physically possible, the direction that the gun's barrel is pointing in, should be strictly controlled and forced into a safe direction, away from fellow students.


What are some of the individual and family factors that contribute to violence committed by teenagers?

1.) Attention deficits and/or hyperactivity disorders. A child who has these mental and cognitive disorders is more likely to commit a violent act than those without any such disorders.
2.) Antisocial beliefs and attitudes. The Columbine killers clearly had anti-social attitudes, wearing all black and calling themselves the "Trenchcoat Mafia". If such anti-social behaviors are observed in school, these children are calling out for intervention, even if they don't voice it.
3.) History of early aggressive behavior. Obviously if a young child has aggressive and contentious behavior before age ten, he/she is more likely to commit a violent act as a teen without some degree of intervention. Many of the most violent people have tortured animals as children. If you know of a child who regularly participates in animal torture, this child could be on the road toward disaster and significant intervention is warranted.
4.) Involvement with drugs, alcohol, or tobacco. Narcotic use, alcohol use and tobacco use can be contributing factors. An aggressive youth is more likely to commit a violent act when alcohol or narcotics are diminishing their inhibitions toward acts of violence.
5.) Early involvement in general offenses. If a youth below ten years of age, clearly demonstrates no respect of the law or parental authority, they are more likely to be insubordinate as teens.
6.) Low intelligence. A teen with a very limited ability to learn in school for whatever reason, will get easily frustrated and can be more likely to lash out.
7.) A lack of self control. If a youth demonstrates a lack of ability to control their own actions, acts of violence may indeed be more likely to occur.

8.) Last, but certainly not least is what I've already mentioned above. School bullying is a common thread found in most school shootings.

There are many elements in the teen's family life that may contribute greatly to their propensity toward committing a violent act:

** Too overbearing and strict parental discipline.
** Acts of domestic violence in the home.
** Parental discipline that is inconsistent.
** Parental substance abuse or alcoholism.
** Parental involvement in criminal activity.
** Lack of proper supervision of the child.
** Lack of parental involvement with the child.

Be on the lookout for these important factors! If you examine these above factors closely, it's pretty easy to see that the falling apart of the traditional American family is to blame for much of the disturbing trend of youth violence. I don't intend to offend anyone when I say this, but it must be clearly stated.

The situation where the man of the home is the father of the children and he is married to the woman of the home, who is the children's mother is far too rare in today's America. Just take a look around you. The traditional family structure in America has fully and completely collapsed. The rise in incidents of youth violence is just a symptom of this collapse in my opinion.

There is an entire generation of young people that are crying out for change, but who is listening?


If you think I made any sense here, please feel free to post this newsletter, forward it, print it or blog it. Just make sure you use in any material.

Thanks,Marc RichardsonOwner/

"We have staked the whole future ofAmerican civilization, not upon the powerof government. Far from it. We have stakedthe future of all our political institutions uponthe capacity of each and all of us to governourselves according to the Ten Commandmentsof God."

James Madison (1751-1836) Fourth Presidentof the United States.

To opt-out of further e-mails from simply reply with "Unsubscribe MMM" in the subject line.