Former New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg just announced that he surely has his ticket into heaven for all the effort he has expended trying to collect guns from the citizens of that city. And for what reason? So Bloomberg sleeps more soundly believing that no one has a gun except those he has chosen? How absurd! Give me your gun and your 32 ounce soft-drink before someone gets hurt! Once we see enough of this behavior, we have to wonder who is more dangerous—Bloomberg or the people with guns? Just where is it stated in the Bible that God will punch your ticket into heaven if you can rid the world of guns?
The original text of the 2nd Amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by then Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, reads: 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. At the time of our founding, a citizen militia was rather common—not so much today. During that time, is it recorded in history that only those people who were serving in the “militia” were allowed to have guns? I don’t think so—at least not in any history that I have read for that period. Clearly the people of this nation have always had a right to bear arms, and to protect themselves and their families from harm when the need arose.
The above-mentioned text of the 2nd Amendment has been looked at and interpreted by many over the years, including the Supreme Court. Some actually believe that its intent is to imply that the only reason anyone should possess firearms is if they are serving in a militia. For me, that is a stretch of great proportion. Honestly, why even approach the subject in such fashion if the only intent is to staff the militia to guard the security of the free state? Why would we create an amendment to the “Bill of Rights” that is restrictive to the people when we are defining their freedoms rather than defining their restrictions?
I believe there is a phrase missing from the original statement which was understood at the time but today leaves the door wide open to misinterpretation. I truly believe to capture the intent of the 2nd Amendment we would need to add: Even in acknowledgement of a well-regulated militia, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In other words, whether we acknowledge the necessity for and presence of a militia or a standing army as a means of national defense, that fact shall not be counter to the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
Thus far, the high court has ruled in favor of the people’s right to bear arms, while at the same time reserving the government’s ability to regulate certain firearms and like devices which are unrelated to militia-use. I like the first part of their finding, but find the second part to be a bit out there on the side of weird. With today’s modern military and police forces, the concept of any use of a militia is outdated, thus the court cites an intent which does not really exist in the modern day. By qualifying its ruling to allow regulation of certain firearms, the court set a precedence for those desiring to go after individual gun ownership in a variety of ways. For example, the argument can be made that an AK-47 or an AR-15 were never designed or sold as militia devices, thus owning these firearms is not protected under the 2nd Amendment. If the court embraces that premise and rules accordingly, then how safe is your shotgun, which presumably was also not designed for that use? As with many things, once we start down that path, we’re on a very slippery slope. Those on the Left couldn’t care less because they will never be happy until all the guns are gone. At the same time, if those on the Right cede that ground, then the precedence has basis and can only grow in the wrong direction from there.
The argument for either eradicating or severely limiting our rights under the 2nd Amendment is grounded in the numerous episodes of firearm violence which occur annually in the USA. In many instances, these episodes have occurred in cities which have already elected to severely restrict firearms. In other words, they have the most stringent firearms laws on the books and yet the worst crime statistics when it comes to gun violence and crime. Looking at the numbers from cities like Chicago, we can quickly conclude that there is no positive correlation between disarming the public and reducing firearms violence. In fact, what those numbers actually do is confirm that criminals do not pay any attention to (gun?) laws. The other things the numbers point out is how many people became helpless victims of armed criminals because they were unarmed themselves and wholly dependent on the reaction time of a 9-1-1 call. Good luck with that!
The United States of America has a strong and sensible foundation on which it is built—a system of beliefs which stemmed from a resistance to anarchy and enslavement by tyrannical bullies. A strong part of that resistance lies with the individual’s freedoms and ability to provide some level of self-defense and protection for themselves and their loved ones. Our Founding Fathers knew that; they understood it and thus provided for it when creating both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those among us who would want to attack these documents labeling them as “outdated” and “irrelevant” only do so for one particular reason and that is control. Control is power and power corrupts even the best of men, quickly driving them into tyranny as they hunger for more and more power. To willingly vacate those rights handed down to us as a nation, without regard to the potential for tyranny is nothing less than an act of ignorance and spits in the face of those who left their blood on the hallowed grounds of our history fighting for those very freedoms.
Those who are willing to destroy the 2nd Amendment will do so in any fashion available to them. As the majority of the people are against them, they know they cannot do it by a vote—thus, they continue to appeal to the highest courts and hope that they will eventually rule that the right to keep and bear arms is too provocative and deadly to continue. Whether that decision will be made or not relies heavily on the future make-up of the high court. If current and future presidents such as Obama can continue to fill vacated judicial seats with those who are not only sympathetic to progressive thinking but also more than willing to legislate from the bench, then the outcome is inevitable and the road to tyranny is our destiny.
The reality of the world today is one of violence. Eliminating every firearm in the world will not change that, it will only redirect the violence and victimize those who only wish to use firearms as a means of self-defense—the vast majority of people. Firearms are capable of death and destruction when they are in the wrong hands, but firearms themselves do not create the mindset for those actions—they are simply incorporated into it. That point becomes obvious in each case where people have been attacked by firearms in areas designated as “No Firearm Zones,” like schools and malls. Here again, those individuals who are unstable enough to desire to kill or maim others will employ whatever means is at their disposal at the time—firearms or not. Eliminating firearms will only shift the focus to other potential options and it will do nothing to change the intended action of that warped individual.
Embrace your 2nd Amendment rights or learn to serve your new masters—fear and tyranny.
© Copyright WBrown2013. All Rights Reserved.