Alexander's Column

The Clinton doctrine of gun control

Mark Alexander · May 19, 2000

As we anticipated, now that the Million (plus or minus 900,000 or so) Mom March is over, the queen mother (Ms. Donna Dees Thomases, sister-in-law of HILLARY! confidante Susan Thomases and former publicist for CBS anchorman Dan Rather) announced that she was converting what was, ostensibly, a gun safety movement, into a political action committee to advance the Sociocrats’ “gun control” agenda.

Supporting his political operative’s “gun safety” appeal, Bill Clinton proclaimed, “Forget about the crimes, just look at the accidental gun rate.”

Memo to Bill: We did, and in 1999, fewer people died in gun-related accidents than in any year since 1913, even though the population – and number of guns – are now many times that of 1913.

The Sociocrats’ agenda is not, of course, about crime or gun safety. It is about gun registration and confiscation. “Our police are hampered by the lack of full gun registration,” claims Clinton.

In addition to the “gun safety” smokescreen, the Clintonistas and their media sycophants would also have the public believe that the Second Amendment is about “hunting and sporting” interests. “Hadn’t anybody missed a day of deer season on what I’ve done – nobody. And nobody’s been knocked out of one sporting contest for what I’ve advocated,” said Clinton after Congress passed his last round of legislation authorizing incremental federal encroachment to control the legal acquisition of guns by law-abiding citizens.

Contrary to the soundbites about hunting and target shooting, the Second Amendment does not concern itself with such mundane matters. It is expressly a prohibition against government encroachment on our natural rights to protect ourselves, as made clear by our Founders, against tyranny.

Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone’s authoritative 1768 “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” makes this natural right clear: “The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

To wit: “One man with a gun can control 100 without one. … Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms,” ordered V.I. Lenin. Millions died. “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves,” proclaimed Joseph Stalin. Millions more died.

Only the most nescient historical observer would claim that the “New Democrat” breed of Sociocrats is somehow devoid of the capacity to produce, in a near future generation, the likes of another Lenin or Stalin. Such ignorance would most certainly condemn one’s children and grandchildren to the same fate.

As for well-intentioned mothers and members of Congress, Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers #78, the definitive exposition on the limits of the U.S. Constitution, stated, “No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. … A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute.”

Accordingly, Chief Justice William Rehnquist decreed in a court decision just this week that under our Constitution, the Founders authorized Congress to act only within limited, enumerated powers.

As for The Federalist’s allocation of editorial space to this issue, we must agree with another Justice, Joseph Story (appointed by James Madison), that the Second Amendment is “the palladium of the liberties of the republic” without which, the Constitution is irrelevant.

Subscribe! It's Right. It's Free.