Posted by
American Sentry on Friday, January 04, 2013 11:35:11 PM
As the gun debate rages in America,
it is irrefutable that Newtown, or any of the other recent massacres involving
deranged murderers over the last 10 years, was shockingly horrific and jolted the psyche
of our nation. It raised to the frontal lobe of many Americans the question of where we
prioritize the safety of our most vulnerable in comparison to, lets say, our
money or our elected officials (many who have paid security entourages for
their personal protection). However,
clearly, after the inexplicable events in Newtown transpired, we see the Gun
Control advocates once again taking the extreme position of gun restriction,
including some calls for confiscation of weapons from law-abiding citizens, in
an attempt to bolster their narrow political agenda on the backs of the
personal tragedy of the Newtown parents and the community writ large. This in
and of itself is a sad commentary on just how ignorant the American populace has become
on what the Second Amendment is for, or how vocal a small but virulent minority
can be to craft a political narrative in the throws of tragedy, regardless of
how skewed and inaccurate it may be.
A great deal of the debate centers on
the “assault-weapons” and the “high capacity” magazines (the canisters that
feed the semi-automatic rifle chamber) used with semi-automatic pistols and
rifles. In short, one can tune into virtually any mainstream news channel or opinion
show and this topic, specifically the “assault” nature of the weapons and the
magazines used with them, is being debated (more accurately, being villified). Gun-restriction advocates will
often distil the argument to something like,” Why does anyone need a high
powered assault rifle or pistol to game shoot, hunt, or to shoot skeet?” Or,
“They aren’t practical for personal defense, because their militarized
characteristics make them hard to conceal, or handle without proper training,”
or, “if we remove the guns, we remove the capacity for mass-murder and
massacres,” or “We pay police and our military to protect us…therefore they are
the only ones that need these types of weapons.”(Something to that effect).
On the surface, if one was not
familiar with American history, or the intent and context of the Second
Amendment, those arguments might resonate a bit more succinctly…here is what
the actual amendment states:
“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.”
Much legal and social argument and parlor-style debate has unfolded from
these 27 poignant and powerful words. There are legal scholars that specialize
in not only constitutional law and the amendments in particular, but also
concentrate primarily on the Second Amendment as a field of expertise. If you
can believe it, for many experts and aficionados of the interpretation of the
amendment, one sticking point is the placing of a simple comma after the word
“arms” followed by “shall not be infringed.” Why in the blazes would something
so apparently obscure be so terribly important when interpreting and defining
the intent and scope of the amendment? As clearly as I can ascertain, it is the
difference between what a “well-regulated militia” constitutes, and what an
individual can do with regards to the “right to bear arms.” Is it that the
“well regulated militia” has the right to bear arms? Therefore the debate can
center on the definition of “well regulated,” i.e. the militia needs to be “regulated.”
Or does it underscore the right of the
“people” i.e. individual persons that make up a “militia” to bear the arms? One
interpretation focuses on the “militia” and how it can be regulated, and the
other on the individual’s right to bear arms that may make up a militia.
Perhaps esoteric, but it is important nonetheless. Though I cannot quantify it,
I would surmise that the vast majority of gun owners in the US probably
interpret the amendment focusing on the individual’s ability and right to bear
arms, vice regulating the militia and thus affecting the individual within a
militia, and to what extent, and what parameters the militia can exercise. This
interpretation focuses on curtailing what type or scope of “arms” an individual
citizen can or cannot possess.
Like with many things legal and administrative, the rhetoric and
meanings of the detailed words can, and are, defined and debated to great
lengths to craft and mold a particular agenda. I have had discussions with
gun-control advocates that insist “regulated” is to mean, “controlled,
monitored, or restricted” in some way. “Regulate” can be defined “to govern or direct according to rule.” It can also be defined as “to
bring order, method, or uniformity to.” The latter is more of a process
oriented definition, where “well-regulated” means orderly, disciplined,
coordinated in its character.” The former is viewed as in “regulating use, content, or scope” of
the militia, focusing on the what the militia can use, vice how the militia is employed. One interpretation could be seen, for example, as one hundred militia men, well
equipped, well trained, organized, disciplined and orderly. The same word,
“regulated” can be crafted to lead one to believe the “equipment, deployment,
formations, use, and implementation” needs to be regulated. Obviously, these
are two very different perspectives, deriving two completely different
constructs regarding what, who, and how the “militia” is to be regulated. Again, I prescribe to the former, where
“regulated” refers to the manner in which the militia conducts itself and not
the restriction of equipment (arms) with which they are to operate.
For me, and I would conjecture for millions of Americans, it is the
latter part of the amendment that makes its intent clear and complete as to
what the Founding Fathers meant regarding the right to bear arms; “…shall not be infringed.” My agenda, and that of many law-abiding
bearers of arms, can be clarified fairly simply. I do not want weapons (yes,
weapons, not sporting goods) so I can hunt…though I like to hunt…nor do I want
them to skeet shoot…though I have enjoyed skeet shooting…nor do I want them to
collect…though, if I were rich enough, I would probably enjoy that too…no, I
want to possess weapons of a near or equal caliber (pun intended) of that of my
local constabulary, and that of most federal forces…period. Why? Why would I as
a law–abiding American citizen in my right mind, need a weapon that is
comparable to my state or federal law-enforcement or military counterpart? It
is simple;
When that official is ordered
to capture or kill me because the government has deviated so far from the
origins of the constitution that it has concluded I am no longer acting legally,
or has decided my formerly constitutional held views were now deemed
“subversive or traitorous”, I am guaranteed the ability to give any potential
jack-booted thug, who himself once was a law abiding citizen, a moment of serious
pause before he decides to kick my door down, or attempt to arrest or kill me
because I no longer adhere to his government’s new political, social, legal,
bureaucratic, or cultural construct.
We cannot afford the government being the only authority on the block
that can force decisions or make the rules beyond the scope of democracy
against its citizens. That is the classic definition of a “bully.” I don’t like
bullies…individuals or governments.
Because the gun issue narrative has shifted so far from the original
intent, and most Americans are exposed to deceptive alternative interpretations
of the amendment through left-leaning educational institutions and falsely
echoed by equally as left-leaning media outlets and pundits, this view, that of
a citizenry defending itself against a potentially hostile and tyrannical
government, might seem extreme…some may even call it “nutter.” However, a much
smarter and savvier political figure once said of America that we are one
generation away from loosing our freedom if we are not familiar and made self-aware
of our history, constitution, and the precious nature of our fragile republic.
The Founding Fathers believed this right, that of free people able to defend
themselves against a potentially tyrannical government, was so important that it
was only trumped in order of precedence to that of free speech and freedom of
religion. Many see the First and Second Amendments as co-dependent; i.e. you
cannot have the First Amendment without the Second Amendment. I believe that in my soul. I also believe a government that (increasingly)
gives you anything can take away everything.
Sadly, as the self-touted most prosperous and free people on Earth,
perhaps in the history of mankind, our Achilles Heel as Americans is our ignorant
complacency and apathy in general to our civic rights and responsibilities to
maintain our delicate ideal. Many of us cannot comprehend the idea of a
tyrannical government in our lifetimes, or that our rights could be so
infringed within the US. I’m sure the Tsarist Russian gentry-class of
the 1890s, or Germans capitalists of the 1920s, or the millions of Ukrainian collective farmers and serfs of the 1930s, or Cuban bussinessmen of
the 1950s, or the Chinese intelligentsia of the 1960s, or the Cambodian
agrarian peasants of the 1970s hadn’t imagined pervasive, oppressive, and intransigent
dictatorships that stripped and outlawed much of their civic rights,
livelihoods, dignity, and futures.
But that, of course couldn’t happen here…right?
Like the ability to place the Ten Commandments in a class room, or
establish a faith-based club on a school campus? Or, have a large prayer group
in your private home? Or exclaim “Merry Christmas” at your place of work? Perhaps
it becomes something more pervasive and intrusive, such as a Health Care law
that now forces millions of Americans to forgo their personal and faith-based
convictions as a result of its implementation. Of course, all of the
aforementioned restrictions have been implemented in some form or another
across this great nation…what is next?
What are you prepared to do in the event of greater, more restrictive,
and potentially draconian or oppressive policies and mandates? i.e. forced to
support state-funded euthanasia and abortion, or state-funded support for
homosexual life-style “sensitivity” training and K-6 curricula in public
schools? Or that Judeo-Christian Western Civilization history will not be
taught in high school as the cornerstone of American history or is taught in a
pejorative, or scornful light? What if
you and a majority of your community decide the prevailing tax laws are too
intrusive and these taxes support, in your vast opinion, a morally corrupt
government? You and several within your community are convicted not to adhere
to the new immorally and potentially illegal seizures of property and assets
because you and your fellow neighbors have concluded the government is
overreaching and oppressive. To illustrate, a calamitous debt burden
exponentially expands as a result of reckless and irresponsible, or possibly malicious
actions (or inactions) on the part of elected officials that far exceeds just
fiscal concerns, but now retards and constrains ways our nation can act in any or
all of its four pillars of national power on the global stage; diplomatic,
industrial, military, or economic. This not only affects our domestic
prosperity, but also threatens our national security as it relates to powers
positioned to do the US and her citizens ill will, costly geo-political machinations, or even harm. That couldn't happen here....right? Would you defend yourself against this morally corrupt
and oppressive regime surreptitiously seizing your assets, property, and funds
and crafting an environment of criminalizing formerly law-abiding citizens as a
result of their conviction and resistance to said corruption and oppression? How
would you defend against that? In a worst-case scenario, the Second Amendment
is designed precisely so you can. I wouldn’t advocate insurrection simply
because I disagree with elected officials or the will of a majority (no matter
how ill-advised and ignorant they had become)…. never…however, I would
absolutely advocate defending against a government that unilaterally labels me,
or millions of others against their will as “insurgents, traitors, or
extremists.”
Governments fear well-armed citizens. That is also irrefutable.
If I ever need to hunt to survive, I can use a high-powered assault
rifle to do that…the opposite, unfortunately, but undoubtedly, is not true…I
will not be able to defend myself against a well-armed federal or local
government force if I, and my fellow citizens, are not equally as “regulated.”
Guns are pervasive and are a fact of modern American life. Laws will not eradicate them
alone. The murder rate in gun-prohibitive sectors of our country, like Chicago, is
proof-positive of that. Chicago had over 500 gun murders in its city limits
last year…those limits are some of the most restrictive vis'a'vis guns in the nation. Only a
massive social, moral, and spiritual revival could begin to tackle that with any serious intent. No
amount of gun-restriction will stop determined, crazed or criminally motivated
persons from acquiring illegal arms and committing horrific crimes. They will,
however, curtail the law-abiding citizen to defend against localized criminality
and possibly tyrannical government forces. As Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the
National Rifle Association, recently said:
“The only way to stop a bad
guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
That is why this
good guy believes in the Second Amendment.