One Nation, Under Gun...

A concerned citizens thoughts on gun control in America.

 

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

“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.”

The second amendment is one of much controversy. The passion behind the gun debate aside, the issue is how the to interpret this otherwise fragmented statement. On one hand, one can argue that this statement makes the case that the States must maintain a well regulated militia, and the purpose of the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is strictly for militia. On the other, one can argue this amendment enables a State to maintain a militia and reserves a right for all people to keep and bear Arms. Unfortunately either assertion is correct as defined by the lexicon, punctuation and prescriptive notions of grammar popularized by people like Joseph Priestly, a grammar pioneer in the 1760's. Ultimately, the meaning of this statement is up to the Supreme Court to decide. There is an interesting twist. The amendment above was not the amendment submitted to the States to be ratified. The ratified amendment as scribed by William Lambert read “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”. Not much of a difference except for the missing comma after “Militia”. The omission is minor but creates clearer context, focusing more on arming the people for the purpose of militia.

The origins of the second amendment are likely influenced by the original English Bill of Rights established by the Parliament of England in 1689. It was established and unconditionally accepted by King Williams III after the overthrow of Catholic King James II during the Glorious Revolution. During the period, the right to bear Arms was considered and scribed as a natural right in English Law, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life. It was specifically worded to protect Protestants against disarmament by the Crown. Something King James II attempted to do before the Revolution.

Because I was not present for the American Revolution, nor the scribing of the U.S. Constitution I cannot speak accurately to the intent of the said amendment but I think we can all agree that it was ratified to prevent the disarmament of the people by the State, and the disarmament of the States by the Federal Government. In other words - to protect we, the people, from the disarmament and control of our government. One can certainly argue the validity or likelihood behind this fear but it has happened many times in history. In fact, the infamous Paul Revere's midnight ride was to warn the Provincial Congress that the British Army was coming to disarm the citizens and volunteer militia.

I of course, leave it to you to interpret the second amendment as you see fitting to your position on gun control but keep in mind its heritage and necessity. The only defense we, the people have against our regular Army is us, the armed citizen.

 

Power of the People, State and the Federal Government

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” - Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Just because it is an amendment doesn’t mean I am free to do what I want. Nothing in life or liberty is black and white. Much like the first amendment, I have the right to freedom of speech but I do not have the right to slander. Infringed is a tricky word. As a citizen, I likely have the right to bear Arms but I do not have the right to and likely no business owning a nuclear weapon. At first glance, the real question is where to draw the line. In fact, this is not the case. The real question is who has the right to regulate the citizens and their weapons. The right to bear Arms is not like bans on illicit drugs or regulation of alcohol. Those have no specific mention in the Bill of Rights. Weapons on the other hand do. This, in conjunction with the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution complicate the matter. As the tenth amendment reads, the fact that Arms are specifically mentioned in the Constitution and that there is no mention on the provisions or ability to legislate by any branch of the Federal Government that it is only legal for the State to regulate weapons. As I see it, unless the Constitution is further amended it is against the law for the Federal Government to regulate the Arms of the people. It is up to the State to regulate weapons in a manner comfortable to its constituents.

 

The Ban on “Assault Weapons”

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” - Noah Webster
 

This is another area of great controversy. This is where we get in to the technical debate of what constitutes an assault weapon. Number of rounds, rate of fire, caliber, barrel length, grip style, intended use. So many attributes. Lets face it, guns are designed to kill. All weapons are “assault weapons” by definition. All things being equal, I avoid this debate because you cannot legislate weapon technology to reduce the number people that can be killed, or how quickly you can kill them. As soon as you snap the line and legislate what constitutes an assault weapon some pioneer will create a weapon that will exceed the intent of the law without violating it. In turn, the law will always chase technology because the reality is the majority want weapons, and effective ones at that. That too has been witnessed throughout history. I know, it sounds like a strange argument “Don't bother trying because it won't work”. That’s not the point, the point is it is not about technology, its about morals. The majority of guns in America lay waiting, their kinetic energy bottle up. Not waiting to rise by themselves to destroy our children but waiting for someone without morals to pick it up and abuse the right. When the government imposes morals it inevitably fails. Prohibition and abortion are excellent examples.

One thing that does frighten me is the misguided trust we seem have in our local, State, and Federal Government. If a gun control advocates argument is that I have no business owning a weapon designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time, then my government and its regular Army has no business owning one either. Not once have a heard a single person address the issue of regulating the weapons for police, reserves and national guard, a.k.a the Regular Army. To maintain a superior force greater then any raised by the United States itself we must consider this as well.

 

Give me Liberty or Give me Death!

Warning: Before you continue reading this I want to warn you that what I am about to say may come off as insensitive, gross, or down right obscene given the current situation. It is likely I will loose some friend from this. This is an unpopular position but I promise it is one not in poor taste.

Wow, a powerful statement. One well known but often used to describe militant patriot zeolites hell bent on overthrowing our government. The text first appeared in Life and Character of Patrick Henry by William Wirt. It was uttered by Patrick Henry before the the Virginia House of Burgesses to pass a resolution delivering the Virginia troops to the Revolutionary War. It was said to have been so moving that it swung the vote. The full quote is as follows:

“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

I certainly admire his passion. A patriot at heart, as am I. “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” That's an excellent question. Is the liberty and security of our nation worth the blood of twenty Newton Connecticut children? It's a question I personally cannot answer. On one hand I am a patriot and will give my life for the liberty and sovereignty of all my fellow citizens if called upon to do so. On the other I am a father of three and cannot fathom the grief of a child taken from me, especially for something so pointless. Unfortunately, it is a question my Federal Government has already answered. Shockingly, it the answer is yes. While we morn as a nation the loss of innocent children in Newton Connecticut we stand by idle in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Our relentless pounding of the “enemy” from lifeless unmanned drones have claimed the lives of 176 children in 2012 alone according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Not one internet meme, not one Facebook post from my friends or family. One can easily say my president is responsible for the unlawful death of 176 children, regardless of our intent. Yet we do nothing to ban drone attacks. No special sessions, no task force to draft a ban on this atrocity. I'm being a bit dramatic for effect but I hope it brings the point home. This, I believe, is the ugly side to our glorious nation but often a necessary one. We cannot say the security of our nation is only worth the blood of another countries people. Sometimes, the safety, security, stability, and liberty bestowed upon ourselves comes at the price of our own.

 

The Evil Villain Exam

The idea has been tossed around that better screening and background checks need to be implemented. This I don't disagree with but the concept of mental health assessment is a slippery slope. Effectively, you are asking your government to be able to deem you unfit without understanding the possible consequences. What happens when the government declares you unfit to own a fire arm and that gets out to the general public. Could I lose my job? Can my life insurance company raise my premium or reduce my policy? Will there be a mental health registry where my neighbors can go and see? Will I bee harassed by police? What if I seek treatment? How do I prove I am again fit for gun ownership?

 

These are all things that must be considered and worked out before legislation is passed in haste. It is far too easy today for someone to falsely accuse someone else of abuse, neglect, or mental health issues. It happens every day.

 

Conclusion

Some of you may read this and think my mindset is extremist or outdated. That the likelihood of my government being eroded or corrupted so much as to overtake its people is so small that I am just down right crazy. The fact of the matter is that it has happened time and time again in history. The blood of hundreds of thousands of American men and women have been shed to keep my great nation, despite its flaws, whole and true to its roots. Roots that define all of us as equal, that define inalienable rights to all its citizens, that mandate my republic be run by we the people. I believe in the patriots that founded this country and I believe in the ideals they brought forth. We the people cannot erode our rights to feel safe from evil, the price in doing so is too great. Before we run off as a nation and look to the kingdoms of Europe as the model for gun regulation remember this, our nation was deliberately designed not to be like them.

I do not believe that banning guns based on their brand or technology is the answer. I do not believe in banning guns period. I do not believe in limiting ammo. I do believe its unfair that you demand the right for a women to choose to keep or abort a fetus but not the right of someone to choose to own a gun. I do find irony in an entire generation of Americans seeking peace through protest being abused by police in peaceful demonstration so willing to relinquish more liberty to that same government.

I believe there is a reasonable compromise to pacifying both yours and my concerns. I am more than willing to register my fire arm with the State, in fact, I already have. I am more then willing to seek license, background check, and extra training to own and carry on my person my fire arms. In fact, I already have. I am more then willing to make schools completely “Gun Free Zones”. I am not willing to have the Federal government impose regulations on guns. I do not believe in limitting citizens to less then 10 rounds. I do not believe in limitting citizens to only bolt or pump action rifles, shotguns or revolvers. I will consider these as options when you, our local, State, and Federal Government are willing to do so themselves.

I hope we focus on the real issue in America, its moral decay. As humans, not as government, I hope we stand up and choose to educate our families in the value of life. Take responsibility for our children, our situation, our actions and make this world a better place through community, unity, love and respect. Not through Federal legislation.

One of the most important lessons I have learned in my short life is to not make decisions in haste. Every time I have made a decision based solely on fear or any other emotion I have usually made the wrong one. I can only ask you consider what's really at stake and make an informed, educated decision.