EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnMANAGING EDITORrnTheodore PappasrnSENIOR EDITOR. BOOKSrnChihon WiUiamson, ]r.rnEDITORIAL ASSISTANTrnMichael WashburnrnART DIRECTOR ^rnAnna hiycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnHarold O./. Brown, Katherine Dalton,rnSamuel Francis, George Garrett,rnChristine Haynes, E. Christian Kopff,rn].0. Tate, Clyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, William Mills,rnJacob Neusner, John Shelton Reed,rnMomcilo SelicrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnAllan C. CarlsonrnPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnPRODUCTION SECRETARYrnAnita CandyrnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnRochelle FrankrnA publiciition of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn934 North Main Street, Rockford. IE 61105.rnEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5811.rnSubscription Departnrent: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morns, IL6I054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnFor information on advertising in Chronicles,rnplease call Rochelle Frank at (815) 964-5811.rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution b” Easterir NewsrnDistributors, Inc., 11?0 Cleveland Road,rnSandusky, OH 44870.rnCopynght © 1996 by The Rockford Institute,rnAll rights reserved.rnChronicles (ISSN0887-5731) is publishedrnnronthlv for $39.00 per year by The RockfordrnInstitute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford,rnIE 6II03-7061. Second-class postage paidrnat Rockford, IL and additional mailing ofBces.rnPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tornChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,rnIL 61054.rnThe iews expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited nranuseripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied bv a sclf-addrcssedrnstamped en’elope.rnChroniclesrnVbl. 20. No. 4 April 1996rnPrinted in tiie [ liiitL-d States DI AmericarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn Radicals and PopulistsrnI agree with Michael A. Hoffman IIrn(Polemics & Exchanges, January 1996)rnthat Vicki Weaver and Gordon Kahlrnwere made of American mettle, butrnRobert J. Matthews? No way. Not if hernmeans the Matthews of the notoriousrnband of racist nuts known as The Orderrn—the group that gunned down Denverrnradio personality Alan Berg for thern”crimes” of being Jewish and liberal.rnKahl and Weaver were Middle Americanrnmartyrs, Matthews was an evil creep: therndistinction isn’t really so hard to make.rn—Cody AnnixterrnBuffalo, mrnThe Editors Reply:rnWe heartily concur. Mr. Matthews’rnname failed to ring a bell.rnOn GunownersrnRonin Colman’s aptly subtitled “ThernSecond War Against Gunowners”rn(“Back From the Brink,” Decemberrn1995) is likely to be considered “a bitrnparanoid” by those who love liberty yetrnsee no harm in “reasonable gun controlrnlaws.” But there is no such thing as arn”reasonable gun law” if it focuses on anrninanimate object rather than a violentrncriminal action. In biblical terms, Mosesrncame down from Mount Sinai with therncommand “Thou Shalt Not Murder.”rnThat injunction did not prohibit thernpossession of a rock with which a murderrncould be committed.rnThe purpose of “weapons controlrnlaws” has never been to control weapons,rnbut to control the subjects of thoserndoing the controlling. It is simple tornunderstand why in ancient times thernPhilistines forbade the Israelites fromrnhaving blacksmiths: “otherwise the Hebrewsrnwill make swords or spears” (IrnSamuel 13:19-20). And we can just asrnreadily understand why Hitler prohibitedrnJews from possessing firearms on the evernof Kristallnacht and the holocaust.rnFor what reason would those in powerrnm the United States attempt to do thernsame thing? A quick scan of the historyrnof “gun control” in this nation shows thatrnits first major use was to keep guns outrnof the hands of blacks. Reread the infamousrn1857 Dred Scott decision in whichrnJustice Taney declared that if Scott, arnfreed slave, were allowed all of the rightsrnof citizens, “persons of the negro racern(would have) full liberty of speech . . . tornhold public meetings upon politicalrnaffairs, and to keep and carry arms whereverrnthey went.” Then consider the seminalrnSecond Amendment case. UnitedrnStates v. Cruikshank, 1876, which heldrnthat it “is a limitation upon the power ofrnCongress and the National Government”rnand therefore did not preclude thernKu Klux Klan from conspiring with a localrnsheriff to prohibit freed slayes fromrnpossessing arms or attending politicalrnmeetings!rnWhat the opponents of gun rightsrnnever mention is that all Supreme Courtrndecisions prior to this century held thatrnthe Bill of Rights was a limitation only onrnCongress. They focus on a statement inrnCruikshank in which the Court correctlyrnstates: “The bearing of arms for a lawfulrnpurpose is not a right granted by thernConstitution.” The antigun crowd neverrnmentions the very next sentence, whichrnconcludes the thought: “Neither is it inrnany manner dependent upon that instrumentrnfor its existence.” In other words,rnthe right to keep and bear arms existedrnprior to the Constitution (See Blackstone’srnCommentaries), and was merelyrnrestated and guaranteed by the Bill ofrnRights. It was the ultimate check andrnbalance without which the people wouldrnhave rejected the powerful central governmentrnlaid out in the Constitution.rnBy the turn of the century, “gunrncontrol” was expanded as a means ofrncontrolling immigrants—code-namedrn”anarchists.” Then, when second-generationrnAmericans in New York City armedrnthemselves against protection racketeers,rncorrupt Tammany Hall Senator “BigrnTim” Sullivan in 1911 enacted the handgunrnlicensing law which bears his name,rncreating a safe work environment forrncrooks.rnIn the 1920’s, “gun control” was main-rn1 promoted bv big business as a meansrnof controlling “criminals,” i.e., strikers.rnAnd in 1934, the Roosevelt administrationrnpassed the “machine gun act”—notrnto control a few minor hoodlums, butrnout of fear of a Depression-inspired revo-rn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn