Analysis of "The Right to Bear Arms," (Warren E. Burger)

The right to bear arms is a constitutional guarantee, and is not open for discussion; however the United States Government has used its power to limit and regulate this guarantee. Our government has been attacking this right for years, and like a covert terrorist organization, it denies its action. Pretending that they just want to limit the right to bear arms is their blanket of protection. They will slowly move from under that protection only when the nation is ready to accept the loss of this right and when it doesn't appear to be huge a movement to give up that right. At some point in the future, the right to bear arms will be so limited that it will just be a natural move to ban firearms altogether. Warren E. Burger defends this movement in his article. Although Burger may appear to be a reputable source on this subject, I question the entire warrant for his article. His entire article is pure speculation, and is it speculation from the common man who would be most affected by the loss or restriction of his right to bear arms? No, it was speculation from a pillar of the United States Government, the Chief Justice.
The warrant, or underlying assumption brought forth in Burger's article is that banning or restricting the right to keep and bear arms will decrease violence. This has been the warrant for the Government movement against gun rights for years. If you really think about it though, this notion is simply absurd. To demonstrate you must first separate Americans into two general categories. First there are the upstanding citizens who work to support themselves and/or a family. These people may experience some trouble with the law only because nobody's perfect. The next category is the criminal. Many categories could be made out of this one, but to keep it simple, we'll just use one. These people generally have little respect for the law, and this is why many of them are in our jails and prisons. These are the people responsible for the murders, rapes, robberies, and other violent crimes in our society today. Now, if you present gun restrictions or a ban on guns to both of these categories, what will be the outcome. The outcome is the entire basis for why gun restriction has a reverse effect. What happens is that you end up with a population of upstanding property owning citizens that are unarmed. This population generally yields to the laws, and therefore they freely give up their right to bear arms. The other side of that picture is the criminal. A man that robs liquor stores and shoots people gets the news that he will no longer be permitted by law to own a certain gun. What are the chances that when this person commits his next crime, he will stop and say,"wait a second, I can't use this gun because it's illegal. I will just have to beat my victim with a baseball bat instead." Obviously this makes no sense at all. Why would a criminal that is willing to shoot someone with his gun, listen to a law that says he can't use that gun anymore. Creating bans or restrictions on gun rights leaves the upstanding citizen unarmed and helpless against the armed criminal. There are many studies that support this idea that more gun control results in more crime, but the idea is so basic, it almost needs no confirmation to know that it's true. The United States Government would like us to stop using our brains and picture the whole world holding hands, singing out in harmony because guns no longer exist. The Government knows that if the mob stops using common sense on this issue, and starts listening to an idea that looks flashy and nice at first glance, they will be able to move from their protective blanket and show their faces without opposition.
Warren E Burger was a pillar of this government for seventeen years. I question his credibility on this issue because of his alternate agenda and motive for this article. What are the cold hard facts that he gives in his article? There are none that have any relevance to his