Thu. May 23rd, 2024

Opinion Piece By Donna Westfall – November 22, 2017 –

Political Scientist, Rudolph Rummel

I am thankful for the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution, because what happens when self-defense is against the law?

First, let’s look at the 2nd Amendment:

“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.”

Democide is the term created by Rummel. It is a term revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel as “the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder”. … Rummel explicitly excludes battle deaths in his definition.

Rudolf Rummel was employed for a short while by Indiana University, Yale University and then for 29 years at Hawaii University.  He died in 2004.

After extensive research, he put the figure of 212,000,000 people murdered by their governments during the 20th century, of which over half was by Communist regimes.

In his book, Death by Government, Rummel discusses genocide in China, Nazi Germany, Japan, Cambodia, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Poland, the Soviet Union, and Pakistan. He also writes about areas of suspected genocide: North Korea, Mexico, and feudal Russia. His figures included only when over 1 million people were murdered by their governments.

His underlying principle is that the less freedom people have, the greater the violence; the more freedom, the less the violence. Thus, as Rummel says, “The problem is power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom.”

Let’s compare that 212 million worldwide figure to mass shootings in the US with a population of over 300 million. Albeit it’s not a great comparison, but the point being that “government sanctioned” murder is far worse than mass shooting violence.  If we just look at what our “government” did during the 19th century, we can call it the American Indiana Holocaust – eliminated Indians through stabbings, beatings, shootings, sickness, etc., the sheer numbers are staggering and in the millions. But, since records weren’t kept, it’s hard to know if that number was 2 million or as high as 18 million. We do know that thousands and thousands of Indians died when our government insisted Indians be relocated to Oklahoma in a 2,200 mile trek.

Getting back on track with shootings and gun violence, where do you go to find out about the numbers involved in mass shootings: Mass Shooting Tracker or

Here are some numbers from the last 4 years:

2014  – TOTAL DEATHS – 12, 564

2015 – TOTAL DEATHS – 13,507

2016 – TOTAL DEATHS – 15,084

2017 – TOTAL DEATHS – 13,850 the worst being Las Vegas on Oct. 1st with 441

The point is that an armed populace would be a serious threat to a tyrannical US government. I’m uncomfortable with the thought that our California legislature can take away the people rights to possess and own guns similar to guns that could be used against us.  We could become sitting ducks. Today, the California Dept. Of Justice has just released new regulations on “assault weapons.”

You have until January 8th at 5 pm to send in your written comments about the ban. For further information go to Firearms Policy Coalition.

If you can see the logic in having the freedom to possess and own guns per our 2nd Amendment rights to “keep and bear arms”…. I wonder if it doesn’t make more sense to spend time and money on mental health rather than restricting and banning guns?

A few final notes about mental health.  In 2004, California voters approved Prop 63 –  a 1% tax on incomes over million to fund mental health.  In 2016, questions are being asked where that $13 billion is going since it’s not being spent as proposed.  In our own County, Mental Health is sitting on over $400,000 for the last four years supposedly to build and house the severely mentally ill.

At the June 22, 2016 meeting of the Physicians Advocacy & Info Task Force, members discussed a class action suit against the state to demand the funds be restored that were directed to other programs or suing the individuals engaged in misappropriating funds.  This issue needs to be looked at in the context of fraud and profiteering.

2 thoughts on “New Ban Proposed on “Assault Weapons” Regulations”
  1. There’s loads of laws regulating firearms and drugs. Passing more laws won’t do a bit of good, any more than laws have eliminated illegal drug use. If the laws in place can’t be enforced, passing more laws will make more laws that can’t be enforced.

  2. If you can see the logic in having the freedom to possess and own guns per our 2nd Amendment rights to “keep and bear arms”…. I wonder if it doesn’t make more sense to spend time and money on mental health rather than restricting and banning guns?

    Whether any one thinks this makes sense or not the writers of the second amendment to the constituion thought it made a whole lot of sense, and so do I.
    The government is OF the people, By the people, For the people.The people ELECT REPRESENTATIVES to run the government for us. The only branch that can make laws is the Legislative branch which is the CONGRESS and the Senate. No one, no committee, the DOJ, not even the president or a state can amend the constitution. I beleive for this to happen would take an act of congress . Any congress person involved in attempting to amend The SECOND AMMENDMENT would becommitting political suicide.

    BELOW IS THE LINK TO THE BEGINING OF THE 52 PAGE DOCUMENT from the Department of Justice siting there authority and other information/delutions about their power. Perhaps our congres person could explain the chain of command when amending the constitution.


    California Code of Regulations
    Title 11, Division 5
    Chapter 39 Assault Weapons and Large-Capacity Magazines
    Article 1. General
    § 5460 Application of Definitions
    The definitions of terms in section 5471 of this chapter shall apply to the identification of assault
    weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 30515.
    Note: Authority cited: Sections 30515, 30900, Penal Code. Reference: Sections 30515, 30900,
    Penal Code.
    The Department of Justice (DOJ) proposes to adopt section 5460 of title 11, division 5, Chapter
    39, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) concerning definitions of terms related to
    identify assault weapons as described in Penal Code (PC) section 30515, after considering all
    public comments, objections, and recommendations regarding the proposed action.
    The DOJ will hold a public hearing to receive public comments on the proposed regulatory
    The hearing will be held on January 8, 2018, 10:00 am to 12:00 pm, at the following location:
    Resources Building Auditorium
    1416 9th Street
    Sacramento, California 95814
    This auditorium is wheelchair accessible. There is no designated parking lot. Parking will need to
    be found nearby.
    At the hearing, any person may present oral or written comments regarding the proposed
    regulatory action. The DOJ requests, but does not require, that persons who make oral comments
    at the hearing also submit a written copy of their testimony
    Any interested person, or his or her authorized representative, may submit written comments
    relevant to the proposed regulatory action. The written comment period closes at 5:00 p.m. on
    January 8, 2018. Only comments received by the DOJ by that time will be considered. Written
    comments must be submitted to:
    Jacqueline Dosch
    Bureau of Firearms
    Division of Law Enforcement
    Department of Justice
    P.O. Box 160487
    Sacramento, CA 95816-0487
    Phone: 916-227-5419
    PC section 30520(c) gives the DOJ authority to “adopt those rules and regulations that may be
    necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent of this chapter,” which refers to Part 6,

    Title 4, Division 10, Chapter 2 of the PC, entitled “Assault Weapons and .50 BMG Rifles”
    (hereinafter, “assault weapons law”). This chapter contains the statutory provisions restricting
    the possession, sale, and use of assault weapons, and PC section 30515 falls within Chapter 2.
    PC section 30515 contains specific characteristic definitions of assault weapons. The proposed
    regulation provides that the definitions of terms in section 5471 of CCR title 11, division 5, shall
    apply to the identification of assault weapons pursuant to PC section 30515. Section 5471 was
    previously promulgated by DOJ in support of the registration of a new class of assault weapons
    and states that assault weapons that do not have a fixed magazine, as defined in PC section
    30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed
    from the firearm with the use of a tool, as provided in PC section 30900(b)(1). Section 5471
    defines forty-four terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to PC section
    30515 or otherwise used in the section 5471 definitions themselves. Under the proposed
    regulation, these definitions would apply to the identification of assault weapons pursuant to PC
    section 30515, without limitation to context of the new registration process.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *