Second Amendment Wars
- July 21st, 2010
- Write comment
If you are a shooter odds are that you are following the never ending debate on the Second Amendment. Almost daily the NRA distributes Urgent Action Alerts about some impending doom legislation either state or Federal. At the same time the anti gunners like Bloomberg and their sympathetic ultra Liberal news partners in the main stream media and publications like Huffington Post extol the virtues of a gun free USA. The debate seems destined to continue ad infinitum.
The anti gunners continue to single out phrases like “well regulated militia” as justification for their inane argument that firearms ownership is restricted to formal defense organizations, not individuals. They point out the violence of a shooting as just cause to do away with guns, melt them down and cleanse us of our evils. Guns like AK47s, AR15s and just about anything with more than a one round capacity is portrayed as a military assault weapon with only one purpose, murder and mayhem.
Those of us who actively collect and shoot firearms see it quite differently. We enjoy the complexity of the machinery, quality of workmanship, being outdoors target shooting or hunting, collecting guns like any other object d’ art and finally feeling secure in our own homes or armed on our person. None of these include murder one, manslaughter, general mayhem or anything close to it. Indeed, as a group, we are generally the most law abiding of citizens.
For all the argument and heated rhetoric the Second Amendment is a very simple, one sentence statement…
“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.”
When the Founding Fathers wrote the second amendment the world was, as the anti-gunners frequently point out, a very different place. Most of the US population lived in very rural, untamed areas, much of it wilderness. There were threats from Indians, wild predatory animals, bandits, foreign invaders and wars to fight. Our country was still new and unsettled and many had to hunt for food to survive and defending themselves alone, in the wild, was obligatory. There was no 911 to call. Indeed, a short horseback ride for supplies could be deadly and in many cases your long rifle or flintlock pistol was your only link to survival and best ally. Today we do not have many of those threats and most of us shop for food at a chain store. If we get in trouble we dial 911 and hope help arrives in time. So we no longer need personal weapons, right?
For those that actually have studied the meaning of the Second Amendment it is clear, without question and concise in it’s language and meaning. To arrive there however, you need to have read everything one can regarding the United States Constitution and the amendments as well as the writings of those involved in it’s creation. The subtleties of the language used in the time it was written are only understood by understanding the definitions of the wording in the 18th Century and by the writings of those authors that conceived them. Once you do it becomes clear that the Founders anticipated the disputes and deliberately crafted the Second Amendment and Constitution so that it did not require independent interpretation once the the proper references were applied for the time.
So, why all the discussion, court cases, Supreme Court rulings and lawsuits? It’s nothing more than two differing opinions by two opposing groups, both wanting to be right. It’s a sign of the times we live in, of a increasingly litigious society, pious in it’s individual beliefs, willing to snuff out the will of the other for it’s own sake. It’s an ever burdensome central government that wishes, at it’s will, to impose whatever degradations of freedom it feels inclined as long it is to their benefit. It’s the state and like thinkers that wish to control the populace no matter what it takes. The end justifies the means including the desecration of the US Constitution itself.
The Second Amendment was not written off hand as a casual footnote. It is much a warning as a ruling. While Franklin, Jefferson, Washington and others could not anticipate the language of the future, they surely knew it would evolve, hence the need to study our history to see our the future. They could however anticipate a return to oppression from a bloated central government and hungry power brokers. They separated the powers of the central government from those of the states and the individual’s right to free speech in the First and Tenth Amendments, and the need to possibly defend our right to all God given freedoms with the Second Amendment from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
As this is written we are at war on fronts all around the world, we are being invaded daily by foreigners illegally crossing our borders and murdering our people, terrorists threaten to exterminate all “non believers” and our central government has become more oppressive and determined to disarms us than ever. Will we need to actively defend ourselves from these threats in our own homes? Hopefully we will not. Hopefully we will achieve a balance to the Republic through political expression rather than violence and defeat our foes before they strike again. The question is as always. Would you rather have a gun and not need it or need one and not have it?
Every American must defend our Constitution and our right to keep and bear arms just as our Founding Fathers intended or there could come a time when the choice will no longer be ours. JDF



