LETTERS: NEED TO PROTECT SECOND AMENDEMENT

To the editor:

In regard to all the talk of additional gun control, I would like to make a couple of points. First, both Democratic presidential candidates are talking of registration and licensing of firearm owners as a means to "control" criminals.

I would like to point out a Supreme Court ruling from 1968, Haynes vs. United States, which deals directly with this issue. "We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm ... or for possession of an unregistered firearm ... ." The case involved a convicted felon in possession of an unregistered machine gun, but the basic premise is that persons prohibited from possessing firearms cannot be compelled to register their illegal firearms or, by extension, obtain a license for the same under protection of the Fifth Amendment.

The politicians pushing such schemes are either too ignorant to be trusted in public office or know exactly what they are doing, registering law-abiding citizens who own firearms. To what end? All one has to do is look at California today. A few years ago, law-aiding citizens were required to register a certain type of rifle with the promise that there would be no future prohibitions. Just weeks ago, these citizens were told we changed our minds, turn in your rifles or we will come get them, and you too, because we know who you are and where you live. Under threat of prison, these law-abiding citizens, who complied with all of the earlier laws, are being forced to surrender their firearms.

The same situation occurred in Washington, D.C., years ago, so the argument that it could never happen here has already been proved invalid. Why would these politicians have this as an ultimate goal? Within the U.S. House of Representatives there is a policy group called the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This group is made up of over 50 Democrats including Peter DeFazio, Major Owens, Maxine Waters, Jesse Jackson Jr., Chaka Fattah, John Conyers and Henry Waxman. The one independent is Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist who works in direct cooperation with the Democratic Socialists of America. The DSA's expressed goals include socialized medicine by expanding Medicare eligibility, economic redistribution, government job creation. If one follows the anti-Second Amendment movement in Congress, these names will be most familiar. One or another will be a sponsor of or seen arguing in favor of every anti-Second Amendment bill in the House. Could this be simple coincidence? I suppose it could be.

Some will call me paranoid, but I do not believe in the Easter bunny, tooth fairy or simple coincidence. As a friend of mine was fond of saying, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."Noah Webster, one of the leaders in the formation of our government, put it very precisely: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed. ... The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."One can only ask, what do these people have in store for us should they ever be able to disarm the American people? What plans do they have that they are only waiting for the opportunity to implement, the time when we are no longer citizens, but instead are subjects, with no option but obedience to the will of the government.

ROBERT A. CRON

Cape Girardeau