As is often the case, this woman’s assertion that there was ‘quite frankly nothing to add’ has inspired me to respond to her comment point-for-point.
In the middle of the night, once upon a time, a house owner heard what seemed to be an intruder entering his house, took his gun, fired and killed his son!
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the Empire destroyed the planet of Alderaan with a giant laser fired from the Death Star.
Do you have some names and dates here so the actual facts can be analyzed, or are you simply inventing a hypothetical situation based on nothing more than misguided emotions that isn’t rooted in any factual evidence?
How about that for self defense? Come on! So tell me, how the hell do you know that guns will be properly used, once issued to the offender in beautiful disguise?
Not sure what disguise you’re referring to, but I can tell you conclusively that the best way to be sure whether or not a gun will be used properly is to observe the gun, and decide if it is, at the time of observation, being used properly. If it is not, then you had better have your own, and use it properly.
My gosh! in what kind of society are we living in…so let’s see, just as an example. My neighbor and I get into an argument. Ok! he or she gets ticked off, and pulls its gun on me, just because! then what?……There is in fact no answer to that. Quite frankly there is nothing to add.
…If your neighbor is the kind of person who would pull a gun on you for ‘no reason’, firstly, you should move, secondly, you should have a means to defend yourself from their dangerous antics.
However, if you are implying that the mere presence of a firearm means that an ordinary person will suddenly become a violent criminal, then you are projecting your own insecurity about how dangerous you know yourself to be with a firearm on others, which is irrational.
Also, as a point of advice, to state in the absolute that there is nothing more to add is to deprive yourself of the beautiful thing that is educating yourself on the opinions and facts available from the people around you, which, whether you agree with them or not, can be invaluable in understanding your environment and interacting meaningfully and safely with it. If you are truly closed-minded enough to dismiss immediately points which have not even been brought to your attention, it is no wonder that you have such a tragically skewed view of how the world works.
State Senator Mike Green, and NRA backed MCRGO are joining forces to try to partially ban open carry. It hasn’t been introduced to committee yet, but it is drafted and reported to be making it to committee imminently.
I know this is just another post on the internet, but for the love of your God or lack thereof, this is important. Send an email, make a call, make so much noise your reps can’t help but listen.
Unless you hate rights. But I assume you wouldn’t be here then.
Word is he is going to pull out all the stops/up-sleeve aces/tricks/etc.
In the meantime, we are already ready to try to stop him from several years ago when we campaigned against SB59. A few tweaks, and our pre written material is ready. Take action by clicking here and spending a few minutes.
Note that this pre-written material contains both pro and anti gun views so that you can recruit the help of ANY politically inclined person you know. Feel free to modify them as necessary.
This is where I stop listening, usually, because whatever comes after the ‘but…’ you can rest assured is going to contradict the initial statement, at least in my experience. If you think it needs to be changed, rewritten, limited, altered, etc., then you don’t support it. You may support something similar, but not the thing as written.
While there is a lot I could say on the subject, I want to specifically address one of my, for lack of a better word, favorite ‘but…’ statements.
The conversation usually goes something like this:
Anti-Gun Guy “I support the second amendment, but I think military style assault weapons [or some gun, feature, weapon type, etc.] should be banned.”
Pro-Gun Guy “What about the first amendment? Do you think we should have speech control?”
Anti-Gun Guy “Dude, even the first amendment has limits, you can’t say ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater, its the same thing! We have to keep assault rifles away from criminals!”
It is not the same thing, not by a longshot. Looking at the right of free speech, the scenario of arbitrarily shouting ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater assumes such is done solely with the intent of causing chaos, and can put people in danger. Based on the Non-Aggression principle covered in another post, this is the point where it would stop being within your ‘right’, because it is a purposeful infringement on someone else’s right to life. If we look at the scenario of someone coming across a murder/rape/etc in progress and pulling the fire alarm [the modern-day equivalent of shouting ‘Fire’] in order to disrupt the violent crime from taking place, this is another story. Similar to how arbitrarily firing a gun in a theater would be dangerous and stupid, but firing back at someone in a situation such as the movie theater shooting during the Batman premier would have been prudent.
So here is what a true-to-life identical first-amendment scenario that parallels what you propose for gun control would look like:
“It should be illegal to say the word ‘fire’. Nobody should be able to use it, and people should go to prison for at least five years for saying the word ‘fire’. Furthermore, once they’re released, they should permanently lose their right to speak because of that one time they said ‘fire’ all those years ago. This is for everyone’s safety, since someone could easily use the word ‘fire’ to cause panic in a crowded theater. People who use the word ‘fire’ to alert people to an actual real threat of fire, even if they save lives, should still be arrested for it after the fact.”
“Slang should be illegal. When the founding fathers wrote the First Amendment they could never have known that the spoken word was going to evolve to where it is today. The First Amendment only applies to ‘Ye Olde English’.”
Sounds pretty stupid when you put it that way, doesn’t it?
* – Footnote about ‘Amendments’. It is important to point out that Rights are not granted to the people by the Bill of Rights or by any other document or decree of any government. The Bill of Rights simply specifically identifies some, but by no means all, of the Rights that we as human beings are entitled to simply by virtue of being living people. Since it is not by the power of government that these rights are ‘granted’, it is also not within the power of the government to limit, control, or revoke them.
This is a common argument I hear by the anti-gun crowd… You can’t have guns, only ‘highly-trained police officers’ should have them, you know, on account of them being ‘highly trained’.
I call bullshit.
Cops are often highly trained, but not in the use of firearms. They are ‘highly trained’ in psychology and coercion methods. They are ‘highly trained’ in getting you to admit to a crime whether you committed one or not.
But when a cop does have to use their weapon, how often do you see dismal hit ratios? How much time do police really spend training, beyond their ‘requirements’?
I’m sure it varies, like anything, but many times it is not nearly often enough.
According to the New York Times, in cases where NYPD officers intentionally fired a gun at a person in 2006, they fired 364 times, and hit their target 103 times.
There are a lot of factors that could have been involved there, and I was obviously not at every one of those shootings, or any of them, but that’s a lot of bullets that went who-the-hell-knows-where. Like the bullet in Burlington, IA, that was destined for a family pet but instead lethally struck a woman in the chest in front of her 4-year-old child earlier this week.
Look at the picture at the top of this post… you might have seen this guy if you follow police-related and 2A related news on the web. That is a SWAT officer. He has a very nice EOTech sight mounted on his AR-15 platform rifle.
EOTech sights like that one are holographic… a side effect of which is that they DON’T WORK BACKWARDS, its just like looking through some glass.
This is why you’ll also notice that his rear ironsight is flipped up [instead of down and out of the way like it would be if the sight was functioning correctly]. The sight adjustment controls are facing the front of the rifle instead of the operator.
Another thing many people were too distracted by the sight-mounting debacle to notice is that the weight of the firearm is being rested, not on the handguard, which appears to be of a free-floating variety, but on the end of the barrel, which would cause the barrel not to be in correct alignment, which means that even if the sight WAS mounted correctly, the weapon would not be accurate. That style of handguard was designed to prevent this sort of thing.
I’ve taken many people shooting, and I can confidently say that by the end of their first lesson, if not at the start of it, either my imparted knowledge or their sheer common sense would have tipped them not to do any of these things, and why. This is basic usage, not even something I would consider ‘high training’. And that guy is SWAT… supposedly the ‘highly trained’ pinnacle of heroism selected from the already ‘highly trained’ pool of officers in the department. The ‘Best of the Best’, so-to-speak.
Being a cop doesn’t mean you are ‘highly trained’, and not being a cop does not mean you are not minimally ‘proficiently trained’ if not ‘highly trained’.
Law abiding gun owners generally train more than people who only carry as part of a job. People who spend thousands of dollars on mechanics tools because they love cars and understand the utility of being able to fix your own are generally going to be much more proficient than someone who was issued a basic ratchet set and a half-hour overview on engine mechanics the day they started their job at the tow-lot/impound yard/auto parts store etc. It shouldn’t take much imagination to understand why.
So next time someone thinks that only ‘highly trained’ officers should carry guns, take a step back and think about how many ‘normally trained’ police officers that would exclude.
I would feel far safer around one passionate gun owner who is armed than I would standing in the lobby of a police station. My opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it.
Perhaps, do you know someone who doesn’t like guns? Then this is a must-watch. Find someone you know well, someone who trusts you that doesn’t like guns. Then share this with them.
I can say that I understand this pretty well. I had an uncle that shot himself, but I had never had any feelings toward handguns until I read chapter 20 from Robert Boatman’s book, Living With Glocks. THAT is a must-read.
I’ve just about had enough of people saying that parents are always in some kind of rage here in Michigan when a father open carries a pistol to their child/children’s school. I can think of controversies of this nature all across Michigan, from Milford to Traverse City. However, I have a different perspective on the issue, which is not an issue at all. Each parent that possesses a CPL in Michigan has the constitutionally-guaranteed right to do so. However, many non-open-carrying parents are not so quick to condemn the open carrier. Below is a video that really is a must-watch on the subject.
This was filmed in West Bloomfield, MI at an elementary school.The school district, police, and open carrier in the video have a professional understanding now, after a huge controversy erupted just before Thanksgiving, 2013.
The parent’s reactions are typical of what the Hell’s Saints activist group encounters when they open carry rifles in the streets: the act of open carrying in each respective circumstance may seem controversial, but it brings out vocal supporters. This is something to consider when being unafraid to be free.
Sometimes, however, the supporters that you would love to have are not on hand…
…and sometimes police tip their hands. As far as I know, there is a lawsuit against the school pending as of this writing. This was filmed north of Flint, MI only two months before the previous video.
Is the open carry of a handgun in a school beneficial? Certainly. Is open carry of a rifle in an elementary school wise? Probably not, for the same reasons as open carrying a rifle in a business is probably not wise, or ethical. Is rifle open carry beneficial at all? Most certainly.
Handgun open carry can be just as thought provoking, however…
As a man begins to mow down innocent children in Connecticut with a barrage of 5.56 NATO full metal jacket bullets with a readily available, store-bought AR-15 rifle, one begins to wonder: how did our great country turn into this? How could it be that almost any maniac off the street could walk into a sporting goods store, wait five minutes for a background check, hand over about $1,100, and walk out with a military-grade killing machine? How could such a psychopath go about his business in the close company of so many non-murdering companions without such a hint of his violent tendencies becoming known? How could he have compiled such a large stockpile of ammunition to carry out the massacre as he allegedly did? What kind of savage, ruthless, uncaring society do we live in?
The kind of savage, ruthless, uncaring society we live in is a free one. Patriots, like this researcher, prefer it that way. The preceding paragraph is the uninformed, illogical, and oftentimes narrow-minded thoughts of those who feel that guns should be further restricted; a virtual orgy of every variety of Pathos, without the smallest grain of Logos. The fact of the matter is that guns, as inanimate objects, are neither good nor bad inherently. It is what people do with them, of course, that makes the difference. Nevertheless, misinformed individuals often maintain that guns do more harm than good for society. This is not the case. Gun control is a very bad idea. It is beginning to be better known to the public that guns reduce crime rates, criminals do not follow gun-restriction laws, and that we have a constitutional right and obligation to own and carry guns. With the following words, it is clear to any intelligent person that guns should not be restricted in any way.
* * *
It may seem totally asinine and crazy to suggest that firearms reduce crime, yet it is true. The simple fact of the matter is that a firearm is a collection of plastic and metal components that, when synthesized in an appropriate manner and combined with ammunition, is capable of sending a projectile a significant distance at a high velocity. Yet no firearm is a sentient being that is capable of self-determination, so guns are incapable of causing crime. To place blame on a firearm or simply the presence of that firearm for a crime is to wrongly attribute free will to an object. Not surprisingly, there has never been a recorded case of a gun actually killing somebody on its own. Usually, a person must pull the trigger. Imagine, if you will, that a car accident occurs on a busy highway. A Honda Civic, going far above the posted speed, smashes into a Ford F-150. In this situation, does the Honda Civic receive the speed violation citation? No, a well-trained officer will always issue the citation to the idiot that was operating the Honda Civic. Just the same, firearms don’t get convicted of manslaughter or murder by a jury of their peers. To blame guns for crime is a logical fallacy that a three-year-old could see. Banning or further restricting guns is incapable of reducing crime because violent crimes can always be committed using other tools, such as vehicles, knives, Tasers, pepper spray, or machetes. One could still make the argument that guns are still too dangerous and must be banned or restricted because they make death much easier. These proponents of gun control often ignore that prescription drugs, alcohol, and motor vehicles are many times more deadly each year than firearms could ever dream to be (Girion) (Gun-Deaths). If the government bans guns, why not ban Vicodin, Jack Daniels, and Chevy’s? This point that it is the user of the weapon, rather than the weapon, that is the problem is even more apparent with a startling revelation about police officers. In 2010, a citizen of the U.S. was more than three times as likely to be shot and killed by a police officer than by a mad gunman going on a rampage (Maimon) (More Than). That fact is staggering. The idea that the officers employed by the government to keep you safe are more dangerous than lunatics with guns is amazing, yet true. It shows that the weapon is not at fault.
One of the most important reasons to keep all firearms and ammunition varieties legal is to allow citizens to defend themselves. In January of 2001, a bill entitled the Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2001 was introduced in an effort to prevent the further erosion of citizens’ right to keep arms for personal defense. A wide variety of congressional findings were included in the bill’s text. For example:
• Police are not legally obligated to prevent crime on a case-to-case basis. Rather, they are only obligated to attempt to protect society in general (Boatman). It is still the individual’s responsibility to protect themselves from crime.
• Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith found that police in Dade County (which includes Miami) responded to only 200,000 9-1-1 calls out of 700,000 in 2000 (Boatman).
• In the United States, there are only 150,000 police officers on duty at any given time (Boatman). This means that there is only one police officer per two thousand citizens.
• Firearms are used sixty times more often to prevent crimes than they are used to commit them (Boatman).
• Of those sixty crime preventions, fifty-five involve the defendant merely brandishing the firearm in a show of force. This means that firearms are still discharged to prevent crime five times as often as they are to commit crimes (Boatman).
With those facts in mind, it seems very clear that firearms can be and are used to protect citizens from harm in a way that the police cannot. When a home invasion is taking place, a firearm is much more practical to prevent harm to oneself than a phone line tied to a law enforcement agency that will take at least several minutes to arrive. Usually, if the criminal has violent intent, the police will only arrive in time to photograph the crime scene after the fact.
The aforementioned points are highlighted exponentially when one looks at the effect gun laws have on crime. In 1987, Florida was considering a revolutionary piece of legislation that would guarantee any applicant the right to conceal a firearm on their person in public. Following is an excerpt from Robert Boatman’s book, Living With Glocks.
The media, however, was predictably vociferous in its opposition to the exercise of [carrying a firearm], and in its total submission to the party line of radical anti-freedom, anti-self-defense and anti-gun forces. Headlines predicted vigilante justice and wild-west shootouts on every corner. “Florida will become the ‘Gunshine State.’” “A pistol-packing citizenry will mean itchier trigger fingers.” “Florida’s climate of smoldering fear will flash like napalm when every stranger totes a piece.” “Every mental snap in traffic could lead to the crack of gunfire” (Boatman).
These dire predictions were never realized. Florida’s homicide rate dropped a massive twenty-three percent as the rest of the country’s crime rates skyrocketed over the next five years (Boatman). All of the conventional logic, which said that less guns equals less crime, proved to be completely bogus. Many states began to create similar legislation after seeing the obvious benefits. As of last year, thirty-seven states will issue any legal applicant a concealed carry permit, eight states may issue, four states have no restrictions on carrying at all, and only Illinois bans carrying in every form.
Certain places have even taken citizens owning and carrying guns to a whole new level. Kennesaw, GA decided that gun control was exactly the idiocracy that it is. As a suburb of Atlanta, it was not completely immune to crime. In a response to Morton Grove, IL completely banning handguns, Kennesaw unanimously passed an ordinance requiring all non-felon households to have a firearm and sufficient ammunition in 1982 (Farah). While the media declared that Kennesaw would soon resemble a war-torn third-world nation, the crime rates (which were admittedly not horribly high to begin with) dropped to points never seen in decades. Murders averaged a ridiculously low 0.19 murders per 100,000 people per year, while armed robberies, burglaries, and rapes dropped to an average 1.69, 25.6, and 2 per 100,000 respectively (Baldwin).
This concept of mandatory ownership of firearms is not unusual in other parts of the world, however. In Switzerland, every male adult is issued a firearm. In fact, the standard issue firearm they receive is the same type of scary “assault weapon” that the media in the U.S. demonizes day-in and day-out. Each citizen is also required to have on hand sufficient ammunition for themselves in a time of war and/or to quell any kind of civil unrest. If that weren’t enough, each citizen is also required to spend a specific number of hours of training each year (Kopel, D’Andrilli). The result? Less than one homicide per 100,000 people (Firearms Switzerland). Our homicide rate still hovers around 4.4 per 100,000 at a minimum (Firearms United States).
The other radical end of the spectrum is shown in countries like Mexico. In Mexico, there is a long bureaucratic process for applying for a license just to own a firearm (Cave). In addition, there are restrictions as to what firearms you may have and how many you may keep. Because civilians are restricted from using any caliber that the police or military use (while the Mexican police and military use almost every imaginable caliber), almost no firearms are completely legal to own. Conventional wisdom might dictate that they would have almost no crime. This is not the case, as Mexico has averaged about nineteen homocides per 100,000 in each of the past five years (Firearms Mexico). That number is over four times the national average in the U.S. in the past decade (Firearms United States).
* * *
In the gun control debate, there is another startling revelation that usually shocks people to their foundations: criminals, generally, do not follow laws. Since that is the case, how can gun laws ever prevent criminals from being violent with guns? On October 16th, 1991, George Hennard drove his pickup truck through the front window of Luby’s Cafeteria in Kileen, TX. He then went on to shoot and kill twenty-three people, injure twenty others, and then shoot himself (Chin). When he did that, he was not concerned about Texas law prohibiting drivers from driving into a restaurant. He was not concerned about the headlight that he busted when he broke the front window of Luby’s. He most certainly was not concerned with Texas law prohibiting, at the time, the carrying of firearms on your person. He was there to kill and that was that. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did not care that Jefferson County, Colorado, and federal law all prohibited carrying firearms into a public school. They were there to kill thirteen people and that was that. When Seung-Hei Cho killed thirty-two people at Virginia Tech, he, once again, was not concerned with the illegality of carrying firearms on campus.
Some people are, however, concerned with the illegality of carrying firearms on one’s person in certain areas. As Suzanna Gratia Hupp was ducking behind a table in Luby’s, trying to avoid being hit by George Hennard’s bullets, she was intensely frustrated with Texas law. She left her revolver in her vehicle just a dozen yards away in an effort to comply with Texas law at the time. Imagine her regret to follow the law as her father was shot in the back and her mother was shot in the head, execution-style, in front of her eyes. A few other patrons had guns locked in their vehicles outside. If (soon-to-be Texas Representative) Suzanna Gratia Hupp or others had broken the law and carried their firearms on their persons, dozens could have been spared (Boatman).
However, some patriots do break the law. The assistant principal of a high school in Pearl, Mississippi named Joel Myrick illegally kept a .45-caliber pistol in his car. For him, this was a compromise to keeping it illegally on his person. When a student opened fire one day, Joel couldn’t easily draw his weapon like normal. Instead, he had to run all the way out of the building and out to his car to retrieve the weapon so that he could stop the rampaging student (Boatman). However, the retrieving of his weapon from his vehicle cost the lives of two students. If he had kept his pistol on his person, he could have saved one or both of the murdered students’ lives.
For these reasons, so called “gun-safety zones” are the most dangerous places for a law-abiding citizen to be. A gun-free area is an insurance policy for a violent criminal. Essentially, it’s akin to having a billboard saying “criminal safety zone.” In a gun-free zone, there are dozens of law-abiding citizens that do not wish to violate the law by carrying a firearm on their person. The violent criminal, who breaks laws indiscriminately, does not care that murder is illegal, let alone carrying a firearm on their person. Therefore, the concept of “victim disarmament” is prevalent. Only the potential victims are the ones who are disarmed. This serious problem is obvious to see and easy to rectify. These unconstitutional and dangerous gun-free zones are the playground of a violent criminal who wants soft, easy targets. Who ever heard of a mass murder at a police station, shooting range, or gun show?
Gun-free zones aside, it is also-well known that criminals do not follow laws in regards to the process for purchasing firearms. The vast majority of criminals purchase firearms anonymously and illegally. Cash is untraceable and commonplace in the transfer of weapons. One needs to simply post on the internet a weapon for sale or a specific weapon that they want to buy to find another person with whom to trade. Some criminals make a business out of going into gun shops and buying up many firearms just to resell at a profit to other criminals who cannot pass the instant background check. Using anonymous, decentralized currencies such as Bitcoin, all kinds of illegal trades can be made on TOR protocol websites anonymously. One particular TOR protocol website that this researcher visited included literally a hundred listings of legal and illegal military-grade weapons of all kinds, including grenades, machine guns, mortars, and explosive ammunition. These internet resources that fuel the growing black market of arms in the U.S. is impossible to track, trace, or shut down by any authority because they are all decentralized and peer-to-peer based.
This brings up another interesting problem that comes about. By restricting the sale of certain guns or ammunition, legislators are actually increasing crime by creating a new market for criminals to capitalize on. During Prohibition in the 1920s, gangsters such as Al Capone made fortunes smuggling in alcohol illegally. Crime skyrocketed in all major cities, people still got drunk every night, and the country was worse off. Just the same, the war on drugs that our government continues only encourages crime as it creates a new illegal product that gangs can move and sell for a nice profit. In Detroit, the homicide capital of the U.S., more than two-thirds of the hundreds of murders per year are attributed to narcotics alone (Shelton). If narcotics were not illegal, those gangs would not have been able to profit off of them and, subsequently, hundreds of people’s lives could be spared in Detroit alone. Banning handguns, for example, would take a protective measure out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, create a new market for gangs to capitalize on, and spur a stronger wave of crime that the now-disarmed citizens cannot protect themselves against.
* * *
Imagine a pollster walking down the street surveying the general public. He asks the people if they like the Declaration of Independence, support the Constitution, and believe in freedom. It would be very surprising to most people if the polls said anything less than 95% of the respondents saying they like the Declaration of Independence, support the Constitution, and believe in freedom. However, if one actually reads the Constitution, for example, and compares it to the current laws we have, one might see that we have moved far away as a society from what our founding fathers wanted.
Our founding fathers grew up in an America that was largely oppressed. The colonists were treated as second-class citizens. Unfair taxes were levied. The colonies’ redress of grievances to the British government was hindered and ignored. They were left with no alternative but some kind of revolt. The British, seeing the inevitable, sent troops on April 19th, 1775 to confiscate the stockpile of weapons that the American rebels had in the Boston area. The Americans, seeing the weapons as the last line of defense against the king’s tyranny, would not allow the British to do this. Thus began the battles of Lexington and Concord, more than a year before the Declaration of Independence was signed.
When our founding fathers were laying the framework for the Constitution in the 1780s, they kept in mind the problems that the colonists had with the British oppressors for the previous hundred and fifty years. They wrote the Constitution in a manner that would restrict and limit government so that tyranny could never hijack the states. A series of checks and balances were placed on the three branches of federal government to prevent a dictator or oligarchy from controlling the people. With the writing and ratification of the Tenth Amendment, the individual states were given the power to legislate as they pleased in a vastly independent way. The rule of law, rather than the rule of a king or the rule of a mob, was set in place though decentralized authority of the states by the Constitution and its first ten amendments.
James Madison, as well as others at the Constitutional Convention, decided that the specific rights of the people should be spelled out in a way that could not be misinterpreted or misconstrued to allow tyranny to take control. In this, he created the Bill of Rights. These amendments guaranteed many freedoms, such as free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to redress grievances to government, freedom to protest, freedom of the press, freedom from search and seizure, right to trial by jury of peers, and the right to keep and bear arms. These many rights were put in place to maintain freedom for the both the individuals and society in general. What is interesting is the Second 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 (USA Bill of Rights).
What can be confusing to some is that the Second Amendment is the only amendment that guarantees the right of the people to own an item. You cannot physically hold free speech, but you can hold a firearm. Why this right? Why would the framers specifically include this right, but not any other rights to own certain items? The people weren’t given the right to own property, the right to farm for self-sufficiency, or any other right to own something.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting, recreation, or even self-defense per se. The Second Amendment is designed to give the people the ability to violently overthrow a corrupt government if one should gain power. We have the Second Amendment to allow a second Lexington and Concord if necessary. This is a radical idea to many Americans who think that corrupt government is a concept only experienced overseas in third-world nations. The people that think this are vastly unaware of history and the path that all empires take. These people ignore Operation Northwoods, the 1962 U.S. Army plan to hijack planes and fly them into skyscrapers in New York City to blame on Cuba (USA Department of Defense). These people ignore Operation Ajax, the successful 1953 operation by the CIA to overthrow the democratically-elected prime minister of Iran in favor of a CIA-controlled dictator (USA Central Intelligence Agency). These people ignore COINTELPRO, the FBI’s illegal program to infiltrate, discredit, spy on, and disrupt peaceful political organizations throughout the U.S. from 1956 though 1971 (USA Federal Bureau of Investigation). Tyranny can happen and is happening in our country as this is being written. The First Amendment was written to allow an ideological and peaceful overthrowing or restructuring of a corrupt government. The Second Amendment was written to allow a violent overthrowing.
If one reads the text of the Second Amendment, that intent is obvious. Specifically, it mentions a well-regulated militia as being necessary to maintain a free state. A militia, by definition, is a decentralized army composed of normal citizenry (Militia).The process of maintaining a free state is threefold. Firstly, by allowing the citizenry to have a method to repel foreign invasion. It is well-known that one of the main reasons that the Japanese never mounted a ground invasion of the U.S. in World War II was because they were well aware and fearful of the armed populous. Secondly, to allow for personal defense from criminals, of course. Lastly, to metaphorically have a gun to hold to the head of our government to ensure that the Constitution is abode by.
The Second Amendment goes on to declare that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. “Arms” can be defined as any item or equipment designed to be used for combat (Arms). This would include not only firearms, but also armor, explosives, armored vehicles, swords, and knives. To “keep and bear arms” means simply means to own and carry arms. This means that anyone, under the Constitution, can legally carry any arm they wish anywhere they want and build up a stockpile of any arm they want for any reason. Some proponents of gun control insist that the Second Amendment is essentially referring only to a government-controlled military and not the private citizens. However, this theory is disproven by James Madison’s Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789. In it, he states very clearly:
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms (Original Intent).
If this clear and completely unambiguous statement wasn’t evidence enough for the framers’ true intentions, the same incontrovertible meaning is explained in the Federalist Papers. Specifically, in Articles 29 and 46, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison outline the same ideas elaborated above; that it is the people’s right to keep and bear arms for the maintenance of freedom and discouraging of tyranny (Hamilton) (Madison).
The final part of the Second Amendment is perhaps the most important part of the language. The last four words serve as the legal concrete on which the entire amendment stands. It reads “shall not be infringed.” These words mean exactly what they say. The right of the people to own and carry firearms shall not be infringed. Put simply, if any law exists that prohibits one from carrying a firearm in a certain area, that law infringes on the right to bear arms. If a certain law exists that prohibits one from owning a certain type of firearm, the right to keep arms has been infringed upon. This is clear to anyone who can comprehend English. If legislation restricts firearms to certain places or certain types, the right to keep and bear arms is clearly being infringed upon. Now, the Constitution is the highest law of the land. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution guarantees this (USA Constitution). As an amendment to the Constitution, the Second Amendment functions as a part of the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison, one of the Supreme Court’s most famous and important landmark cases, reiterated and confirmed the Constitutions supremacy by declaring that, “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void” (Marbury). Between the Supremacy Clause and the decision in Marbury v. Madison, it is clear that any law that infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms in any way is null and void. All it takes is one informed judge, prosecutor, or jury member to allow an alleged violator of a gun law to go free.
* * *
For many reasons that have previously been spelled out, a world without guns is a much scarier place than a world where everyone has one and is trained to use it. That is one of the most important parts of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: the need for a “well-regulated” armed populous. “Well-regulated,” in this context, does not mean “heavily restricted” or even “reasonably restricted.” It means that we, as a society, need to be trained and informed in the operation of firearms for defense of ourselves and the state. Part of being well-regulated, in the opinion of this researcher and our founding fathers, is ensuring that a vastly ignorant public understands the importance of gun ownership, as well as the removal of gun control legislation and extrajudicial Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations.
From the perspective of an informed person, the horrors associated with guns are not the guns themselves. Rather, the horrors are the unconstitutional, crime-provoking restrictions that are placed on firearms and ammunition. When reading the Second Amendment to the highest law of the land in our great republic, it often confuses me: how much clearer could the words “Shall not be infringed” be?