<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Ron Resnick</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/ron-resnick/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>The Second Amendment Is Not Negotiable</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ron-resnick/the-second-amendment-is-not-negotiable/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-second-amendment-is-not-negotiable</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ron-resnick/the-second-amendment-is-not-negotiable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:51:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ron Resnick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Second Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shooting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=169670</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recounting the irrefutable facts about gun ownership in America.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/ron-resnick/the-second-amendment-is-not-negotiable/second-amendment-belt-buckle-b0189-3/" rel="attachment wp-att-169697"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-169697" title="Second Amendment belt buckle B0189" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Second-Amendment-belt-buckle-B01892-450x346.jpg" alt="" width="270" height="208" /></a>Cries for more “gun control” have flooded opinion and editorial pages in the wake of the school shooting in Connecticut. The opinion that Americans do not have a right to own firearms, and the assertion that the Constitution does not protect the right of individuals to own firearms, is absolutely false &#8212; and also incorrect in the context of law.</p>
<p>In 2008, the United States Supreme Court in <em>District of Columbia v. Heller</em>, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), held that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Second Amendment to the United States Constitution</a> protects an individual&#8217;s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms">right</a> to possess a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm">firearm</a> for private use within the home in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_enclaves">federal enclaves</a>.  In 2010, in <em>McDonald v. Chicago</em>, 561 U.S. __ (2010), the Supreme Court held that the right of an individual to keep and bear arms protected by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Second Amendment </a>is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights">incorporated</a> by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause">Due Process Clause</a> of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Fourteenth Amendment</a> and applies to the states.  That American citizens have a right to own firearms is conclusive and irrefutable.</p>
<p>People who have an emotional revulsion to firearms in general and who respond to shooting tragedies with well-intentioned proposals to prohibit or restrict law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms must remember that possessing a firearm is not like possessing a boat or a golf club.  The possession of boats and golf clubs are not enshrined in our Constitution as <em>fundamental liberties</em>.</p>
<p>The right to own a firearm was considered by both the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 and by the current Supreme Court to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion.  These liberties are guaranteed to each of us by the first two amendments to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.</p>
<p>We may grit our teeth when watch the Ku Klux Klan use the rights guaranteed to Americans in the First Amendment to march and to make inflammatory statements with which we disagree.  But would we say that because a few kooks use these rights to upset us we should restrict freedom of speech and peaceable assembly for all of the rest of us?</p>
<p>Of course firearms can be used by criminals and by mentally ill nuts to commit crimes and to kill innocent people.  But so can knives, cars and hammers.  A speeding truck can cause the same mayhem as an illegally fired handgun.</p>
<p>Guns are the most effective way for individuals to protect themselves and their loved ones from attack.  So the right question to ask is not whether guns can be used to commit crimes; the right question to ask is:  “Are guns used more often to prevent crimes or to commit crimes, and do they save more lives than they take?”</p>
<p>The research of John R. Lott and numerous other academics has proven beyond question that crimes are stopped with guns about five times as frequently as crimes are committed with guns.  The irrefutable fact is that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes.  States which allow law-abiding citizens to carry guns experience the lowest rates of violent crimes.  Criminals are much less likely to attack people if they fear that their intended victims might be able to defend themselves.  Since criminals do not know who is and who is not carrying a concealed handgun, if even only a few citizens actually carry concealed handguns they effectively reduce the likelihood of attack for everyone else.</p>
<p>Would more laws regulating firearms have prevented the killings in Connecticut?  Do laws prohibiting the sale and possession of illegal drugs prevent drug addicts from buying drugs?</p>
<p>The answer is not to restrict the firearms rights of law-abiding citizens.  The answer is that the mentally ill should not be allowed to buy firearms.  Mental illness and crime reporting requirements should be tightened.  States must diligently submit mental illness and criminal records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System so it can red flag individuals who should not be buying firearms.</p>
<p>Difficult though it may be to understand when we see crimes committed with firearms and the tragic loss of innocent life, we must remember that firearms are not like any of the other things we own.  The Founders of America saw fit to place firearms in a highly exalted position in our framework of individual liberties.   We must resist the temptation to abrogate the rights of many due to the illegal actions of a very few.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ron-resnick/the-second-amendment-is-not-negotiable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>373</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reality TV Saved the Second Amendment</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ron-resnick/how-reality-tv-saved-the-second-amendment/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=how-reality-tv-saved-the-second-amendment</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ron-resnick/how-reality-tv-saved-the-second-amendment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 04:36:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ron Resnick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[firearms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gun Control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reality tv]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Second Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Son of Guns]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=167395</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How showing the true side of gun ownership has changed public perception. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/ron-resnick/how-reality-tv-saved-the-second-amendment/american-guns/" rel="attachment wp-att-167418"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-167418" title="AMERICAN GUNS" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/american-guns-13-438x350.jpg" alt="" width="263" height="210" /></a>I used to dream that someday I would make a fortune, retire from whatever business occasioned the fortune and endow what I would call the Second Amendment Litigation Trust.  The sole purpose of this trust would be to finance the engagement of Second Amendment attorneys to prosecute litigation designed to result in judicial decisions affirming the constitutional right of individuals to keep and bear arms.</p>
<p>I envisioned raising public, legislative and judicial knowledge and awareness of the origin of, and the meaning of, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  I was looking forward to hiring Second Amendment scholars to identify what we believed to be Second Amendment violations and to persuading people to whom injustice had been done to become the plaintiffs in our crusade to advance liberty in America by dusting off and exalting the Second Amendment.</p>
<p>It is striking how Democrats have deleted from their vocabulary the phrase “gun control.” For decades policy arguments about restrictions on firearms have sharply divided conservatives and liberals.  But the subject of “gun control” was nowhere to be found in the congressional mid-term elections of 2010 or the presidential election of 2012.  Not one word about restrictions on firearms was uttered by President Obama until he was asked directly in a presidential debate whether he would support a renewal of the federal ban on “assault rifles.” Obama said “yes,” genuinely from his personal policy preference, but visibly hesitatingly from his campaign strategy point of view.</p>
<p>What caused this reversal of liberal dogma?  Why is “gun control”  now a dirty word and a guaranteed political loser?</p>
<p>It turned out that I never made the requisite fortune to fund my Second Amendment Litigation Trust.  Gratefully, I did not have to.  Litigation, prosecuted by the very attorneys I had hoped to hire someday, achieved in the United States Supreme Court the judicial victories supporting the individual right view of the Second Amendment I had dreamed of helping to secure.</p>
<p>In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court in <em>District of Columbia v. Heller</em>, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), held that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Second Amendment to the United States Constitution</a> protects an individual&#8217;s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms">right</a> to possess a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm">firearm</a> for private use within the home in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_enclaves">federal enclaves</a>.  In 2010, in <em>McDonald v. Chicago</em>, 561 U.S. __ (2010), the Supreme Court held that the right of an individual to keep and bear arms protected by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Second Amendment </a>is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights">incorporated</a> by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause">Due Process Clause</a> of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Fourteenth Amendment</a> and applies to the states.</p>
<p>The country in which I live might, in my estimation, have changed radically and tragically the day the decision in <em>Heller</em> was announced.  Just five justices to four justices decided <em>Heller</em>.  If merely one justice had voted the other way we would have awakened in a country which was not the country in which we went to sleep the night before.  If <em>Heller</em> had not upheld the individual right view of the Second Amendment I would have believed that the principles of liberty and constrained government, and the right (indeed the duty) of the citizens to overthrow an irredeemably tyrannical government which had violated the Constitution, on which America was founded and which were codified in the Bill of Rights, literally had been repealed and destroyed.</p>
<p>The scary reality is that the United States is just one Obama Supreme Court appointment away from waking up in the country described in my nightmare.  A switch of only one vote would unhinge the ability of law-abiding Americans to own firearms, and cancel a right upon which our individual liberty and representative democracy ultimately, and always will, depend.  How four justices of the U.S. Supreme Court could have concluded that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right of individuals to own firearms is baffling and horrifying to me, but that is what they believe.</p>
<p>To my surprise the most powerful guardians of the Second Amendment have come not from law schools but from cable television network programming meetings.  I believe that reality television shows based on firearms have exposed millions of Americans to the safe use of firearms for sports, for target shooting and simply for fun.  By making the widespread ownership and use of firearms acceptable and normal to millions of people who have never touched a gun, these shows have unwittingly saved the Second Amendment.</p>
<p>In <em>Top Shot</em>, a reality TV show on the History Channel, male and female shooting enthusiasts from military, police and civilian backgrounds compete in marksmanship tests using a variety of weapons to see who will be named the “Top Shot.” This show allows decorated military veterans, public servants like policemen and firemen and educated and intelligent civilian hobbyists to demonstrate their skill in the shooting sports and their respect for, and love of, firearms.</p>
<p><em>Sons of Guns</em> is a reality TV show on the Discovery Channel about a custom gunsmith business in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  The show allows the obvious fascination with, and love of, firearms of the gunsmiths on the show to shine through.  The show also delves into the individual identities and personalities of the members of the cast and their personal relationships, and shows them as real, normal, emotionally happy human beings who simply enjoy building, working with and shooting firearms of all kinds.  Finally, <em>Sons of Guns</em> frequently features war heroes, professional athletes and celebrities who passionately like, own and shoot guns.  In our star-obsessed world anything a celebrity does which is not illegal makes the activity more attractive and acceptable.</p>
<p><em>American Guns</em> is a reality TV show on the Discovery Channel about a family gunsmith business in Denver, Colorado.  The cast, including the father who owns the shop, and his wife and daughter who work there, allows viewers to associate firearms with a successful business and a happy family life, and shows how target shooting can be a safe, fun and wholesome family activity enjoyed equally by different generations.</p>
<p><em>Family Guns</em> is a reality TV show on National Geographic about a father and son who buy, sell and restore rare firearms.  The show reflects the ordinary human drama inherent in any parent/child relationship and in any family business relationship.</p>
<p>Each of these shows allows people from all walks of life, and especially people in urban areas who never have even seen or touched a real firearm, and who know about firearms only what they see in action movies and in news stories of homicidal maniacs with “assault rifles,” to see smart, educated, classy men, women and youngsters using firearms completely safely and purely for sports, fun and entertainment.  These television shows unintentionally have the effect of introducing people to the safe and fun use of firearms.  Instead of associating guns solely with horrible crimes committed by kooks, these shows prove to people that it is acceptable to own firearms, and that many normal, intelligent, educated people enjoy the shooting sports.  These television shows have introduced the acceptability of firearms ownership and use in peoples’ minds, and into the fabric of our culture, in ways that even successful results from my litigation trust never would have achieved.</p>
<p>The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion.  These liberties are guaranteed to each of us by the first two amendments to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.</p>
<p>Even if a new justice who believes personally that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of states and not of individuals to own firearms is appointed to the Supreme Court, I am no longer certain that <em>McDonald</em> and <em>Heller</em> would be reversed.  If an ever larger majority of Americans view the private ownership of firearms as normal and acceptable, as taught by the increasingly popular and numerous reality TV shows about guns, I doubt the Supreme Court would overrule that widespread view.</p>
<p>I had always believed that the Second Amendment is the most important amendment because it guarantees the only right that is capable of defending the other rights in the Bill of Rights.  To my surprise it actually has been the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech and thereby allowing the creation of reality TV shows, that has fostered a renewed appreciation of, and has ensured the enduring sanctity of, the Second Amendment.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/ron-resnick/how-reality-tv-saved-the-second-amendment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 403/424 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 07:14:23 by W3 Total Cache -->