Since the horrible murders of 26 school children and faculty in Newtown Connecticut, the gun control issue has been broadcast on the main-stream media non-stop.
The left has taken this horrible tragedy and the heartache our nation feels, and used them to completely control the conversation on gun control. Now we even hear so-called conservatives agreeing that more gun control may be necessary to help prevent this type of tragedy from ever happening again, while they ignore the fact that areas with greater firearm freedoms have less violent crime, and areas marked as “gun-free zones” have produced nearly every mass murder in the last 60 years.
They’ve already convinced the public that semi-automatic firearms are “assault weapons” based on how they look, not how they function, and they even have the media repeating talking points such as “no one needs these semi-automatic rifles for hunting or sporting purposes” (although this is completely false)
Arguing these peripheral points with gun haters is completely pointless and a waste of time. Why? Because the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, sport shooting, concealed carry laws, or even defending your home from invasion. The Second Amendment is about something far “uglier” than this. It’s about a topics that no one wants to talk about, on either side of the aisle.
Before we get into that “ugly fact” about the Second Amendment, let’s have a quick vocabulary lesson first.
A Second Amendment Vocabulary Lesson
“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.”
- to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
- to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
- to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.
Many anti-gun people like to believe that the word “regulated” means that the founders wanted the government to restrict citizens firearms rights. But why in the world would a group of people that just fought a bloody revolution that was started on April 19, 1775, when the British sent a force of roughly 1000 troops to confiscate arms and arrest revolutionary militia in Concord, Massachusetts, turn around and want the government to control the militias arms? They wanted a well practiced and trained militia, not the opposite.
- a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
- a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
- all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
Many claim that the word militia can only refer to the National Guard or other government military, but once we read what the founders said, this theory is thrown out the window.
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia….The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee - Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
“A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” (James Madison – 1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.
“I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (George Mason – Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
- to hold or retain in one’s possession
- to hold up; support: to bear the weight of the roof.
- to hold or remain firm under
- to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
So, to put the Second Amendment in layman’s terms – A well trained and practiced group of citizen soldiers is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and carry firearms must not be violated or transgressed in any way.
Securing The State From Whom?
The founders wanted civilians to have arms to secure the state…but from whom?
To quote David Harmer in his Brigham Young Law Review paper, “The rights of the people are threatened by the surfeit of government as surely as by its absence. In the Constitution’s ingenious mechanism of checks and balances, the Second Amendment provides an extragovernmental check on governmental power. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the ultimate guarantor of all their other constitutionally recognized rights.”
And good ol’ Thomas Jefferson stated that “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
That Second Amendment Fact That No One Wants To Discuss
The topic that no one wants bring up during a gun control debate is that the Second Amendment is about the people controlling the government, and “gun-control” is about the government controlling the people. The Second Amendment is about going to war with government agencies, as a last resort, just as our revolutionary founders had to do when Britain became too controlling. The Second Amendment is our insurance plan that the government cannot push us further than we can tolerate.
“But Having Guns Is Unsafe And People Can Hurt Others”
To live is truly free society, there will always be a price for our liberties. In a nation with over 200 million privately owned arms, there are bound to be mentally ill people that use them for illegal violent purposes on occasion, but is that enough for us to give up one of the most important rights we have as free men and women. I would say not.
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
The AR, AK, And Other Semi-Auto Rifle Platforms Are The Bare Minimum Required To Fulfill The Founders Intentions
As defined above, we as free American’s have the right to own and “carry” arms (keep and bear), so this probably doesn’t mean you can drive your own tank, but instead, you may own small arms – rifles, handguns, shotguns and the like. Since the founders wanted people to own small arms equivalent to the military they fought in the Revolution, it is logical that we should have equivalent small arms to the US government since this is who the founders wanted us to keep in check. This would make the AR-15, Kalashnikov, and other semi-auto rifles that the media loves to demonize, the absolute bare minimum that would fulfill that purpose. Can you imagine them wanting us to strike fear into our modern government with a black powder musket? Of course not. Nor would they want us to use neutered reduced capacity magazines for that matter. Semi-Automatic rifles and handguns are the closest thing we can currently own that would meet the founders requirements.
“The American People Could Never Go To War With The Modern High Tech Military”
I’ve heard the argument many times that the Second Amendment is pointless because the average militia member wouldn’t stand a chance against the power and technology of the US Military. This is true if you believe that any sort of civilian uprising would be fought out in the open, with large groups of people forming “battle lines” and facing our military head to head. Perhaps they’ve been watching too many movies or playing too many video games if you think this would ever happen.
For one thing, I don’t believe the American Military would ever turn on it’s own citizens and harm them. There are too many Oath Keepers out there. Truly patriotic military and policemen that actually understand their oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I would imagine that the American people have much more to fear from other federal agencies. For some strange reason they have been stockpiling a lot of weapons and hollow-point ammunition lately – ammunition that is banned by the Geneva Convention, but they find totally acceptable to use domestically.
Our military is currently tied down in Afghanistan dealing with guerilla fighters that harass them daily with IED’s and small arms fire. With over 21 million hunters in the United States, many familiar with long range shooting and camouflage, plus millions of other firearms enthusiasts and militia members in our country, I would say that the Second Amendment has real “teeth”, and no organization, no matter how technologically advanced and powerful would want to ever go down that horrible path. It would be far worse than our first civil war, with massive casualties on all sides, but the large number of armed Americans could harass any force to the point of collapse with only small arms.
As long as the we continue to let the media control the gun control discussion by talking about magazine capacity, evil AR-15′s that “no one needs for hunting”, and other pointless distractions, we will never win this argument.
The real question is whether or not the American people are ready to give up their freedoms and become completely dependent on the government for security and safety, or if they understand the true meaning and importance of the second amendment as our last resort against tyranny and a guarantee that no one will take away our rights.
If you believe that our rights should be preserved at all costs, contact your elected representatives and ask them to vote down these new gun control measures that infringe on your right to keep and bear semi-automatic firearms, which are the most efficient and effective tools to secure our free state from tyranny, and to protect our homes and families.