Guns, gun laws and the Second Amendment

The right to own guns is inextricably intertwined with liberty itself.


WASHINGTON, Oct. 3, 2015 — When firms like Starbucks, Chipotle and Sonic ask customers not to bring legally carried guns into their stores to avoid upsetting other customers, they speak to reasonable, honest adults. Criminals and madmen don’t hear and won’t listen.

Madmen and criminals continue to slaughter innocent people on our streets, in our businesses, on playgrounds and on school campuses.

At the root of the gun problem in this country is the refusal of some to recognize the nature of the problem, much less attempt to fix it. To this day not one gun law, not one restriction has prevented a criminal or person suffering from mental illness from going out in the public arena and killing people.

Does the Umpqua shooting demand better mental health access?

The president and media immediately spin these killings into their propaganda. They demand more gun control laws to keep the guns out of the hands of killers, but the safety they peddle is a delusion.

According to Mother Jones magazine (May 31, 2014), from 1984 to 2014, mass killers used 22 shotguns, 23 revolvers, 29 rifles, and 77 semiautomatic handguns. Three quarters of these weapons were legally purchased.

We have the constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms as an extension of the rights to life and liberty and as a means to protect our property. Some people discount those rights in the belief that disarming the public will reduce crime. They value security above liberty itself.

Is this government’s role? As one of our great leaders once said, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government” – Thomas Jefferson.

So why the assault on the Second Amendment when it is not the Second Amendment that creates killers?

Baby boomers grew up during a time when rifle clubs flourished in our high schools. It was a time when responsible (and non-medicated) students brought their rifles to school without incident.

It was a generation weened on westerns like “Gunsmoke,” “The Rifleman,” “Rawhide,” “The Lone Ranger” and “Bonanza,” shows in which every man in town carried a sidearm and no one gave it a second thought.

Political correctness and an aggressive anti-gun political agenda have turned Americans who exercise the constitutional right to carry arms into targets of ridicule and objects of fear. They, not actual killers, are the enemy.

Our Constitution grants us that right without the express permission of the government. The Dick Act of 1902, also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill, raises a barrier to gun-control laws. It divides the militia into two distinct categories: organized militia — the National Guard and Naval Militia — and unorganized militia — men between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not part of the organized militia. These men have the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The Dick Act does not by itself guarantee the right to bear arms, nor does it set the boundaries of who can. Otherwise, men older than 45 and all women could legally be barred from owning guns. However, it does support the argument that the Constitution does not limit gun ownership to members of organized militias.

The Honorable William Gordon in a speech to the House on Oct. 4, 1917, said:

With over 300 Million guns in the United States, the federal CORPORATE government (federal gov’t defined as corporation under 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (15) and the states are subdivisions of the corporation, 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (10), cannot ban arms or stop people from defending themselves against a tyrannical government.

Because gun crimes have been highlighted at every opportunity by a compliant media, guns and gun owners are often cast in an unfavorable light. Yet around the time of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, a crazed man in China stabbed over 27 people. That got little media play in the United States; no gun was involved.

We can argue that the Founding Fathers wanted to secure the right of Americans to defend their lives and liberty if their government became tyrannical. They knew about tyrannical government, and they were under no illusions that their new government was perfect or that men were perfectible. In their genius they created a nation that has remained remarkably stable and relatively free for over 200 years. Most Americans do not think tyranny can happen here.

It can, it has and it will. Think about the Indians, black slaves, and Japanese Americans. Think about militarized police and SWAT teams and the war on drugs. Even here, liberty is fragile.

Guns are an equalizer. Cities with the most restrictive gun ownership laws have the highest crime rates. There’s a word for unarmed people in cities full of armed criminals: prey.

Minorities have benefited more than most from laws permitting concealed weapons, especially black women and the elderly who live in high-crime areas. They walk the streets with a little more confidence knowing they can defend themselves. Early gun control laws were passed with the intent of keeping blacks unarmed and giving armed whites a greater feeling of security. Had blacks not been kept disarmed, they would not have been such easy prey for the Ku Klux Klan and racist mobs.

Trust, the government, and civilian/military gun rights

News shows rarely highlight situations where people have defended themselves successfully because they owned guns. Elitists who push restrictive gun laws are willing to employ hired guns, but not to let the masses protect themselves. Are their lives more valuable than our own?

Despite horrific mass shooting tragedies, gun violence in the United States is down.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) “gun killings” fell by 39 percent from 1993 to 2011; non-fatal crimes fell even more sharply: 69 percent. Despite having more guns per capita than any other country in the world, according to the Swiss-led Small Arms Survey, the United States does not have the highest murder rate.

Chicago, which has some of the toughest laws in the nation against the handling, purchase and ownership of firearms, leads the nation in the number of murders, and guns are the weapon of choice.

“Gun-free zones” have been the sites of several recent tragedies, such as the one in Oregon. The shooter was free to slaughter others without fear of being taken down. Yet the first thing liberals demand after shootings is the removal of more guns.

While anti-gun coalitions and our government are trying to disarm Americans, government agencies are stockpiling billions of rounds of ammunition. They have collected more ammunition than our military used during the Iran and Afghanistan Wars.

Why does Homeland Security need enough hollow-point rounds to plug every American six times?

Should we trust government at its word, or is there some nefarious motive behind these weapon and ammunition acquisitions? Thomas Jefferson wisely observed: Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”

But with every mass shooting, liberals demand that government disarm the people and more closely monitor our habits and behavior, further tilting the balance of power against us.

Citizens of America, it is your Second Amendment right to own guns. Writing to Maj. John Cartwright in 1824, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves … or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.”

The right to own guns is inextricably intertwined with liberty itself.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.