I normally do my utmost to avoid blogging on subjects that smack of politics in any way, shape, or form, but a recent incident has forced me to speak out on a subject that tends to stir up controversy anytime it’s mentioned.
I’m talking about the 2nd 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.’
First off, I am a gun owner. I am a LEGAL gun owner. I enjoy shooting, and, not meaning to brag, I’m pretty good at it.
My reasons for gun ownership are many, but primarily it boils down to the fact that I have the RIGHT, as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
The majority of LEGAL gun owners in the United States are law-abiding citizens who would never dream of using their firearms to commit a crime. They own guns for various reasons: hunting, protection of home and family, or like myself, they
just enjoy shooting. The 2nd Amendment guarantees them that Right.
The majority of LEGAL gun owners in the United States are also RESPONSIBLE gun owners. They practice safe handling of their firearms, they secure them properly when not in use, thus keeping them out of the hands of children or others not qualified or instructed in the safe handling of firearms.
The majority of LEGAL gun owners in the United States exercise their Right in a responsible manner.
But, as in anything, there are always those that ruin it for the rest of us.
The ‘Anti-Gun’ Lobby in this country loves to jump on any incident where firearms are used to commit a crime. When this occurs, they shout “They used a gun! Take all the guns away!”
If someone uses a car to commit a crime, nobody shouts “They used a car! Take all the cars away!” Or “They used a pair of scissors! Take all the scissors away!”
No, it’s always “Take all the guns away!” FROM EVERYONE, not just the individual responsible for the crime.
Why?
Well, some people in this country don’t like guns. That’s a simple fact, and that is most certainly THEIR Right. Guns to some represent power and authority. Some people are (understandably) afraid of guns. It doesn’t matter. Those are their
beliefs.
But the simple truth of the matter boils down to one thing:
It wasn’t always so easy to kill a man.
Let me explain what I mean by that.
The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of The United States was ratified on December, 15th, 1791, and I’m not going to dissect it and hash over the implied meaning in the manner that some do. Everyone has a difference of opinion on exactly what it means. But, all told, it states that we have that Right, and it shall NOT be infringed.
But think about this for one moment. 1791. During that time, the most common firearm in use was a .68 caliber flintlock smoothbore musket. To load, aim, and fire this weapon, one had to do the following:
Cock the hammer to the ‘half cock’ position.
Tear open a paper cartridge with their teeth, or,
Pour a charge of powder down the barrel.
Seat the ball in the muzzle.
Withdraw the ramrod and seat the ball down on the powder in the breech.
Replace the ramrod.
Pour a measure of powder into the pan.
Bring the hammer to the ‘full cock’ position.
Aim.
Fire.
This procedure normally took anywhere from 15 to 20 seconds. In battle, that is an ETERNITY.
One had a few moments to THINK about what was going to happen during that procedure.
When the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791, there were no repeating rifles, no automatics, no assault rifles. Soldiers faced one another in ranks, at distances no more than 100 yards. They could see the faces of their enemy. It was personal. It
was INTIMATE. They had ONE SHOT to fire, then, provided they werre still standing, repeat the loading procedure.
In 1791, Drone Strikes were not carried out in impersonal manners by Nintendo whizzes sitting safe in a command bunker, a far distance away from the field of battle.
In 1791, it was understood that the RIGHT of ‘Keeping and Bearing Arms’ entailed GREAT RESPONSIBILITY. In this day and age, because firearms have become more advanced, and loading, in some cases, is simply a matter of inserting a clip
into the magazine well and releasing the slide, that responsibility has become
even GREATER.
The taking of another person’s life is NOT a natural act, nor should it EVER be
trivialized. Ask ANY combat veteran.
I don’t know if video games such as ‘Call to Duty’ and others like it have made the taking of another’s life seem ‘trivial’, or if this has numbed people to that fact. I only know that as gun owners, we have not only the RIGHT, but we have a public responsibility.
'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.’
A firearm, just as it was in 1791, is a tool. That tool can put meat on the table. That tool can be used to defend your home and family. That tool can be used in many SAFE, responsible ways. But like ANY tool, an axe, a hammer, or a chainsaw, it also has the potential of being misused.
A firearm, ANY firearm, used in the wrong manner, is DANGEROUS. But so is a car, or a pair of scissors. Cars are easy to operate as well. So are scissors.
As gun owners, we should not only exercise our Right to ‘keep and bear Arms’, but also, even more importantly, we must ALWAYS demonstrate the RESPONSIBILITY associated with that Right.
For if we fail in that, the ‘Anti-Gun’ Lobby will be justified.
I stated in the post that I was not trying, nor shall I attempt here, to hash out the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, only that it gives that Right. You may take any view of its meaning in any manner you wish. That is YOUR RIGHT, and I defend it. My POINT, was that those that LEGALLY own firearms in our great nation have a responsibility to the public to insure that said Right is not infringed upon. This includes, but is not limited to, teaching safety and respect toward firearms. This post is not about sharing MY OPINIONS of waiting periods or background checks. I have stated my personal opinion on 'High-Capacity' magazines. This entire post, is strictly MY OPINION, and I am not trying to force my views on any other person. My views, again, are my own, and I do not expect others to be in full agrement. And let me also say that this is a very worthy comment. (NOW you all understand WHY I normally avoid anything that has even the SLIGHTEST hint of politics)
I think that the Second Amendment was written for people like Mr. Dumas, and that there are lots of people ON BOTH SIDES that could learn a lot from listening to what people like him have to say.
Look at the news in Ct lately, everyday there seems to be an equal amount of deaths by guns and stabbing. Logically the old adage "people kill people" is true. The last few psychopaths had a distrubing trend. The had exhibited mental behavior that their familes, schools and co-workers ignored or passed over. The correct way to adress the situation is to find the core problems and the weaknesses that allowed it to happen, not blame guns. I found it very disturbing in the late 80's and 90's when Republicans around the nation went on a "shut down mental institutions to save money" spree. Rowland closed everything except CVH. The people at Norwich Hospital were just let out, this attributed to several deaths that the media downplayed. The simple fact is we have been on a crusade to increase Corporate Welfare while shutting down services to the people one at a time, to transfer wealth, tax money, to large corporations. This needs to be reversed. Some people need to be locked away from society and you can't do it or even evaluate them when the institutions are all closed. There also needs to be a system where families can turn for help without being stigmatized and schools, especially colleges need enforcement of some type to get these people help if the family turns a blind eye.
Might I point out regarding the history of mass shootings in the US, almost all occurred in "gun free" zones. Regarding restrictions on high capacity magazines, well that depends on your definition of high capacity, one anti gun group defined it as anything over 5 rounds, which of course would ban most revolvers.
You said "My reasons for gun ownership are many, but primarily it boils down to the fact that I have the RIGHT, as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment." My problem (respectfully) with this is having to justify your right to do anything to anyone as long as you are not threatening or hurting or forcing anybody to do anything that they don't want. In other words, the question asked to many, "why do you need a gun?" is invalid and implies that if you don't provide an acceptable answer (to the person who asks the question) you don't deserve this god-given inalienable right. It is just the opposite. The right to life, liberty, property is INALIENABLE. It comes with human life and is inseparable from it. You don't have to justify or rationalize doing anything that in no way hurts or harms or threatens other in a free society. It's as if you are guilty unless you prove yourself innocent. You have a gun for the same reason you have food in your refrigerator, a car in your driveway, or a tv set in your living room, because you have the god given inalienable right as a free human to live any way you want to. Let THEM explain why you can't be free, why you don't have the right to self defense, or have no right to own and live they way you want to though you threaten no one. The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect your right to bear arms, it restricts the government from taking your god-given inalienable right to bear arms away for no good or moral reason.
The 2nd Amendment says "shall not be INFRINGED." This means exactly that, a persons right to bear arms shall not be taken away, encroached upon, or chipped away at... and this is exactly what things like background checks and waiting periods and "assault weapons" bans do, chip away at our god given inalienable right to live free.
I would say tell that to the Branch Davidians, but they were all murdered by the Clinton administration for holding unpopular religious beliefs.
Michael, your argument that the second amendment doesn't protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is somewhat diluted by your last sentence that the 1st amendment protects your right to free speech. If your argument against the 2nd amendment holds true, then so can it be applied to the 1st. Maybe you don't have unlimited protection to free speech.
It was more of a right wing thing, the ATF was told it was going to absorbed into other agencies, to make them seem viable they concocted this attack, they could have sat round Waco and other areas and simply served Koresh his warrant. When they blew it they told Reno and Clinton and the press that they had molesting children to cover it and get support, it worked for a bit. Right wing extremists in the military then slaughtered them, women and children. I was in Mexico at the time and saw live footage you did not see here, I saw a tank punch a hole in the side and shoot fire inside the building, later I saw a tank punch through the kitchen wall and then back up, men got out the back with machine guns and sprayed the people inside, then one man walked up to a window and with a flame thrower lit the back of the building. Later it was Orin Hatch that cleared everyone involved. Can't happen here?
That story talks about how the Colorado shooter had serious issues in college, threatened his school psychiatrist and then his school access was taken away, essentially kicked out of college. The signs were there, no one wanted to deal with it.
Point being, I don't find arguments comparing the 2nd with the other amendments convincing. It's a case of it's own, and a good knuckle-rapping to the authors for saddling us with 220 years of debate over something that they could have stated as clearly as the other rights.
The idea of releasing, for a lack of a better word, the mentally ill and/or handicapped was a human rights issue. Those mentally challenged in many cases ended up on the streets homeless. Was it right? or the best thing to do?, are questions for another discussion. It has been discussed for decades to close down CVH, yet it is the only place I believe we have left in CT to hole those that are innocent because they are insane. Please know your facts before you start throwing out bad information as it does not assist in your arguments. Deinstitutionalization and the Development of Community Based Services for the Mentally Retarded: An Overview of Concepts and Issues. [written in 1975] http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED112606&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED112606 CONNECTICUT OPINION; LET DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION REALIZE ITS POTENTIAL [written in 1985] http://www.nytimes.com/1985/03/31/nyregion/connecticut-opinion-let-deinstitutionalization-realize-its-potential.html?pagewanted=all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation