Editing 75-11-B3 (section)

= Gun Control # 3 =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
We're only nine years away from 1984 and now there's a federal proposal to disarm law abiding citizens in many parts of the country. I'll be right back.

I've been talking recently about the ongoing efforts by well-meaning people to limit or even abolish the right of American citizens to own guns. These people like to point out that most murders are perpetrated with guns and that most crimes of violence involve the use of handguns and that many persons are accidentally shot each year. Therefore, they say, outlaw guns and there will be less crime, fewer killings and fewer accidental deaths. I disagree, even if all they say is true and I doubt that it is, I disagree. Let me tell you why. Yes I believe a person has a right to own a means of protecting himself against criminals but that's not my main reason for disagreeing and yes, I believe that criminals would get guns anyway thus leaving the average citizen even more at their mercy than he is today, but that too isn't my main reason for disagreeing.

Let's go back for a minute to the Constitution. We all know that it clearly specifies that you and I have the right to bear arms and that that right cannot be infringed. An entire amendment deals with this right. The amendment is simple it reads that, quote, "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." Unquote. Underline if you will, the word free when you read the Second Amendment. The Founding Fathers obviously were concerned about preserving freedom. They believed that arms in the hands of the people would secure freedom. They felt that a militia should be trained for just that purpose. Now we've neglected to keep a well-trained militia but that fact alone is not reason to also give up the right to bear arms.

Interestingly the Founding Fathers don't specify that the state is necessarily endangered from the outside, although that probably remained one of their concerns. But if one looks at the times during which the amendment was written and at the context of the other nine of those first ten amendments, it becomes apparent that what they really feared was the possibility that government might take away the freedoms of the citizens. In their newly created free state, each of those first ten amendments guarantees a freedom. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizen to protect those other freedoms. Take away the arms of the citizen and where is his defense against not only criminals but also against the possible despotism of his government. In police states, they take away the citizens arms first. This ensures the perpetuation of the state's power and the ability of the police to deal with dissenters as well as criminals. I believe that those who run our federal, state and local governments today, as well as those who advocate disarming the people, have no sinister motives but history tells us this won't always be the case.

So isn't it better for the people to own arms than for them to risk enslavement by evil or power hungry men or nations? The Founding Fathers thought so.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2">&nbsp;</TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>06/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:JtkSUtXcaZc|Posted by Me]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>