By AATTP Guest Contributor Dustin K.
If you’ve had the chance to talk to a real tea partier about gun control, chances are you’ve gotten just about the same response as everyone else. You usually end up with a yelling, screaming TEApublican, foaming at the mouth, shrieking about tyranny, the founding fathers, and probably some hints at a secret government plot to take everyone’s guns away forever. The conversation almost always turns to the second amendment, with the radical right clutching to it just as hard as they clutch to their bibles and anti-gay rights. Here’s the kicker, though: what the conservatives are screaming about the second amendment isn’t true. It just isn’t. Let dive into some facts.
The second amendment read as follows: “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 issue we see over and over again is that the conservatives only want to focus on the second part of this. They say that any gun control at all is infringing on their rights to own a firearm. No semi-autos? No clips holding more than 10 rounds? They’ll scream “infringement, infringement, infringement” all the way to the local gun show. What they don’t focus on is the first half, which is INCREDIBLY important.
To break it down, here’s what needs to be looked at. First off, the amendment used the words “well-regulated”. Common sense regulations like the banning of unnecessary weapons and limits on clips are NOT infringements on rights to bear arms. They are simply ways of keeping death tolls down in the event of a tragedy. Think about it: on average, I would say that, every time an assailant has to cock back a hammer in a situation like the Aurora shooting, that’s 1-3 lives the attacker would have otherwise taken with a semi-auto.
Second, the amendment states that a militia is needed to uphold a free state. Regardless of what the Fox News crowd may tell you, this doesn’t mean every jack nobody in the backwoods needs a gun to prevent a government uprising. Even George Washington, in his first annual address to congress, said, “a free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite”. Does this sound to anyone else like he’s talking about arming yourself because you’re paranoid that the guy you didn’t vote for is going to send in a SWAT team for your guns? No? Then congratulations, because you’re using your common sense. We could even take it a step further. Did you know that America had no standing army when the amendment was written? It could be said that this was to protect our freedom against outside forces due to this fact, and perhaps we already have a militia of non-military-appointed fighters. They’re called the national guard.
As a final point, lets look at the ridiculousness of saying that the second amendment somehow gives you the RIGHT to own a semi-auto. The founding father’s had no idea what weapons would be capable of after the amendment came into play. The first semi-auto, the M1 Garand, wasn’t even invented until almost 100 years AFTER the amendment was written. That begs the argument from the right-wing that “even if that’s the case, I need a semi-auto to defend myself against someone who has one”. This argument holds NO water! Other countries have nukes, does that mean that every person in the USA should be allowed a surface to air missile!?
In closing, there is no real way to justify a lack of gun control with the second amendment. We, as a nation, have a right to bear arms, that goes without saying. However, the Republican party in large will try to use any possible gun control to spew their propaganda and paranoia, convincing those who can’t think for themselves that Obama is going to personally show up at their doorstep to take their guns, punch them in the face, and call them ugly. What we need to do is be reasonable. Remember, we have every right to be armed, but that doesn’t also mean we have the right to be armed to the teeth.
Dustin K
Latest posts by Dustin K (see all)
- Tactical Firearms Shop Owner Says Mentally Handicapped People Shouldn’t Have Any Rights at All - February 7, 2013
- Holy Crap: Ann Coulter to Obama, ‘Screw You’ (Video) - February 6, 2013
- Karl Rove Goes To War With The Tea Party! (Video) - February 5, 2013
Time to start clamping down on these school ‘Kill Zones’ for crazy people! Ridiculous arguments aplenty. What if a teacher with CCW goes crazy? Doesn’t matter, if he is crazy he”ll pack illegally. What if a student attacks teacher and takes weapon? Doubt it, if crazy said student exists, he’ll bring gun from home. A concealed weapon should never ever be un-holstered in a school zone unless a real world threat exists; virtually eliminating potential chance of accidental discharge.
The South Dakota House of Representatives has passed a bill that would allow schools to train and arm staff members. @[104479062979067:274:KELO Kelly Bartnick] has more on the debate in this story http://www.keloland.com/newsdetail.cfm/school-sentinel-bill-passes-house/?id=143170
I wish people would educate themselves before they publish a blog!
- Regulate in 2nd Ammendment means well equipped and trained. That was the meaning of the day and recently ruled upon by the US Supreme Court.
- Arms means personal weapons. It doesn’t mean ordnance (i.e. cannons, hand grenades, bombs, or nuclear devices)
- Limiting ammo count is infringement. Sorry ‘hardly ever’ does one bullet kill one person. Wars would be really, really cheap if that were the case. When the next LA riot starts, when the next Katrina hits, when the next Hurricane Sandy hits, when the next Tsunami hits, and/or when the modern day Obamaphone organized ‘Flash Mob’ come to ‘Rob’ my neighborhood, I want my AR15 with six fully loaded 30 round clips as my ‘go to’ self defense weapon.
**Obamaphone organized ‘Flash Mob’ come to ‘Rob’ my neighborhood,**
Seriously? That’s why you want your guns? So when the President whips his poor black minions into a marauding frenzy, you can mow them down like something out of a scene from “Resident Evil”??
“Mommy, mommy! I want a pony so I can ride to the MOOOON!”
No pony for you, my little jackalope.
Maybe we do need them , if for nothing else to protect ourselves from the murderous bagger Republicons
Sir,
While I agree with much of your piece a few comments. The 2nd amendment does allow people to bear arms in order that they might support a militia.. That was the thought at the time it was ratified. The founding fathers wanted no standing military as it was seen as a threat to the central government. It could revolt or be taken over by some other authority in their view at that time. Additionaly there was no money to pay an army. This led to SHAYS rebellion and other unrest after the war for independence. When Washington was burned in the war of 1812 it was partly because with no standing army we were fighting with militia. Poorly trained and organized
against the British. The right to bear arms actually has been written into the U.S. civil code, sometimes called common law since day one in the colonys. Upstanding citizens of good character were allowed and encouraged to own arms to defend against Indians, wild animals and of course their country. The 2nd amendment established it as a point of law. However the 2nd is not a law unto itself. Its always been understood that civil law always allowed/permitted changes in the carrying and bearing of arms to increase public safety.
Even supreme justice Scalia has stated so much.
My other point is your statement in the 2nd from last paragraph. The M-1 Garand was not the first semi-auto rifle made. And it came along well after the first hundred years of the 2nd amendment. Developed in the late ’20′s it was the first semi-auto rifle accepted by the army in the mid 1930′s. For your info the first commericialy successful semi-automatic rifle was the Remington model 8
which came on the market in 1906. Semi-automatic only means the weapon (rifle or handgun) reloads with a fresh round after firing and ejecting the spent shell casing after each squeeze of the trigger. There are millions of guns in existence that use this process.
If your for or against a certain type or class of gun you need to be specific. The 2nd amendment states I can own a gun. Civil law may state what type and class, and under what conditions. This is currently what the gun right discussion is centered on, in my opinion.
Ya gotta love that last paragraph *LOL*
See people tend to select sections of the Constitution that support their world view. Most ultra conservatives and libertarians tend to have this romantic view of throwing off the yolk of an oppressive government and often cite that was the intent of the framers of the Constitution. However, there is no evidence, implied or otherwise that supports this notion in the Constitution. In fact, in our early history this country has always asserted itself against insurrections by the people (Whiskey Rebellion being the most famous example).
When people argue that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to own any weapon in order to fight the government when the time is right these same people often ignore section 8 of the Constitution which states: To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. Taken together with the language of the 2nd Amendment which holds: 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 purpose is clear. The Congress has the power to call forth the militia to execute the laws or the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions, and the people have the right to bear arms to further that purpose.
Nowhere does it say the right to bear arms is specifically meant to deter tyranny and over throw the government. The militia however has been replaced by the national guard, which meets the definition of well regulated, and is supposed to be designed to execute the language of the Section 8.
Vinny and others can’t get over the word “militia” in the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled people have the right to own guns. 44 out of the 50 states do not mention “militia” in their interpretations of the Second Amendment in their State Constitutions. They declare it is a person’s, citizen’s, individual’s, people’s, or right composed of the body of the people to bear arms. Apparently, the thousands of people in these states that created, drafted, adopted, and ratified their State Constitutions referenced “The Federalist Papers” and quotes from our “Founding Fathers” pertaining to the Second Amendment. Why would anyone be so naive to believe the Supreme Court would overrule 44 State Constitutions?
Why are there so many uninformed people trying to mislead others by failing to educate themselves?
I am a proponent of my rights to own a gun. That being said, I do think AATTP take a bit of a broad view when it comes to the Gun Law Crisis ™.
The largest conundrum, and the ones that always stalemates Gun Control discussions is the obvious notion of curtailing firearm ownership. This is done in many different ways, from outright banning firearms to requiring registered ID to specifically own guns and have those weapons registered to your ID and so on. All of these are, above board, rational and decent decisions.
The other side of the coin that halts the momentum is the large group of people who do not follow regulations, do not follow the law and illegally acquire firearms. The counter-argument to more regulation is that your punishing the law-abiders for actions of the law-breakers. I know I won’t go into a school and commit a tragic, heinous act. But those who do, and will, ruin the party for the rest of us.
Mind you, considering this is about Semi-Automatics and extended clips, the above statement means little as to be honest….I see no rational reason for semi-automatics and extended clips. Your average bullet kills 1 person. A revolver, has 6-7 bullets. Hell, a saturday night special has 1. SNS’s can easily defend a home (unless you miss) and revolvers or handguns with their 6-12 bullet capacities respectively, can protect any home or any individual from home invasion, danger or issues of survival.
Extended clips, nor the ability to ‘kill the bad guys faster!’ makes no sense for average citizens to have.
Insofar as the ” founding father’s had no idea what weapons would be capable of after the amendment came into play” argument goes…. you know? The argument that states that the Framer’s only meant muskets when they were referring to “arms?” Well, those same Framers decided to write the 1st Amendment before the 2nd, and those same Framers had no idea what “the press” would be capable of after that amendment came into play. At the time those amendments were written, “the press” referred to the printing press, to newspapers carried on the backs of horses to the backwoods frontiers of our fledgling nation…not to the internet, nor to handheld mobile devices that would be able to transmit data/pictures/video across the world in a matter of seconds. Following the “logic” of the “musket” argument, wouldn’t that mean that 1st Amendment protections do NOT apply to internet communications, to movies, to TV, to radio, to texting? In terms of advances in technology in “the press” vs. those in the field of “arms,” I think any reasonable person could conclude that an AR-15 does about the same thing that a musket could do during the Framer’s time, albeit more effectively, and that’s the crux of my argument. If, as any reasonable person must conclude, the 1st Amendment applies to ALL forms of communication we can use today, then logically the 2nd Amendment also applies to the cutting edge technologies available today as well. And just to be 100% crystal clear, that does not apply to “nukes” as the writer of the article referred. “Arms” means exactly what it sounds like, weapons that can be carried and used for self defense. Nukes, grenades, missiles, RPG’s, etc…are not weapons of self-defense, they are weapons of mass destruction and do not apply to this argument. So stop with this silliness. ADMIT that an armed guard or principal or teacher could have, at the very least, slowed down Adam Lanza and given the police more time to arrive and SAVED lives of innocent children! When a response time of SECONDS is required, you and your ilk are willing to subject those children to 3-5 MINUTES or horror, and 3-5 minutes is actually a better than average response time for cops. If you won’t admit this, then I submit that you are so hopelessly wedded to an ideology that you are unable to be reasoned with. Unfortunately, I think this charge applies to most of the anti-gun Left in this country. Emotion trumps reason at times on both sides of this debate, but mostly on the anti-gun side.
thats a weak argument because the first amendment stands on its own, despise any new technologies. But, for argument sake maybe it should get updated, and get rid of the 2nd altogether. Its meaningless drivel, spouted by gun crazy nra type. The first drafts make it abundantly clear a milia meant trained individuals, of proper age (and white).
Yes. There needs to be limitations. If I knew my neighbor owned surface to air, nukes I’d call the cops on him faster than you can say “2nd amendment”. there is a debate what we call reasonable, sure I get that. But 30-100 clips? thats silly. Now you’re getting into your defintion of “arms”. I’ve seen/heard many tea-bagger, NRA, pro-gun nutjobs that they should be able to own tanks. How is that a weapon of self-defence. Maybe if you are the paranoia type. sure…
Freeballer,
A very classy name you chose for yourself, first of all, you douche. Secondly, learn English before trying to debate someone on a comment thread like this, lest you embarrass yourself with mutliple misspellings and grammatical errors and render yourself less than credible. That being said, you really don’t give any facts/figures to back up your assertions. Just saying that my argument about the 1st amendment ” is weak” doesn’t make it so, “despise” new technologies…God, where did you go to school?! Couldn’t I just say the same thing about the 2nd amendment?
I’m not in the NRA. I’m not a Tea Party member. I don’t know what a “milia” is, and I don’t try to race bait. I wasn’t arguing for citizens to have the right to SAM’s (that’s surface-to-air missiles to civilians), nor was I arguing for my neighbor to be able to own nukes. That’s silly, and I explained why in my initial post. That’s not what a rational person would argue. I don’t care what the dirtbags you choose to hang out with argue regarding “the right to own tanks,” I’m not them. And I’m not paranoid, just prepared. I’m only saying that the 2nd Amendment is equally as important a part of our Constitution as the 1st Amendment is, and that while technologies have clearly changed in the roughly 250 years since the American Revolution regarding both the press and the firearms industries, the protections codified by those Amendments remains the same despite these technological advances. You seem to agree when it comes to the protections of the 1st Amendment, but why not the 2nd Amendment? Are you afraid that those of us who do own guns will rise up and revolt and throw off the shackles of your half-assed/ill-advised/incompetent, yet well-intended attempt at tyranny? If so, I must ask: now who’s paranoid? There’s a saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Take heed my freeballing friend.
As far as the right to own high capacity magazines goes (which now means anything over 7 rounds in the state of NY thanks to Gov. Cuomo and a bunch of cowardly legislators!), I say this: During the Rodney King L.A. riots, the police were ordered to stand down and for days while the rioters ran amuck and the people and store-owners were left to fend for themselves to protect their property. During Hurricane Katrina, police were either ordered to stand down or simply couldn’t handle the massive devastation caused by the storm and once again, the people were left to fend for themselves among the looters. During the recent “super-storm” Sandy in NJ and NY, yet again, the people were left to fend for themselves while looters with weapons had their way. These are the types of situations that justify the legal possession and purchase of these high capacity magazines, as if I or anyone else needed any justification other than “I want them.” Who the hell are you or anyone else, let alone some beaurocrat from D.C., to tell me or anyone else exactly how many rounds we’re are allowed to carry/employ when making the crucial and personal decision of if/when/how to defend oneself and one’s family/property? How dare you? How dare they?
How good is the government at “regulating” illegal drugs? Or underage drinking? Or infections in hospitals? All these things kill more people than guns do per year, look it up! How in the hell do you expect the very same inept government that “regulates” those things to be able to “regulate guns” effectively, without turning the average law-abiding citizen/veteran/gun-owner like me into a criminal/felon and without creating a black market overnight? The answers are: YOU CAN’T, and YOU DON’T! You and these left wing politicians just have this insane need to feel like you’re “doing something” whenever tragedy strikes. Well, I submit to you that there is something you could do and it’s not passive and it doesn’t involve passing more laws that the criminals will simply ignore anyway. I submit that we take Obama’s advice as per #18 of his 23 executive orders and hire more armed guards for our schools and provide our kids with a fighting chance the next time a maniac decides to try to make headlines by taking out a bunch of innocents. You can mentally masturbate all you want about gun control and mental health and all that business, I want more concrete action that will at least slow the shooters down and divert their attention away from our kids long enough for the cops to show up and take these MF’ers down! You knee-jerk anti-gun people that seek to needlessly disarm ordinary citizens are the ones who need to have your heads examined, not us.
Two points – 1)Columbine had an armed guard. 2)Look up gun deaths in Britain and Australia after they severely curtailed or regulated gun ownership in the wake of two horrific school shootings (Dunblane and Port Arthur respectively) in 1996.
Lets try and remove the emotional what-ifs and look at real world data.
Susan, I’ll address your points in reverse order: 1) The Port Arthur shooting in Australia was not a school shooting, “just” a crazy guy shooting up a tourist spot, among other locations…if you read the account you may find that someone with a CCW might have been able to stop the carnage way before he murdered as many as he did. I don’t know the crime stats in Australia since the year of that event, which was the same year as the Dunblane massacre in the UK, but the crime stats from the UK regarding violent crime show a marked increase since the tightening of gun restrictions. Less guns equals less gun deaths, this may be true, but less guns also equals more violent crime. I’ll take the former over the latter any day. The UK is now considered the most dangerous country in the EU…how do you account for that? For further info: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
2) Yes, Columbine had and armed guard, and 13 people were killed there. Those 2 jackasses planned to kill hundreds that day by exploding propane fueled bombs in the lunch room and bringing the roof down on top of hundreds. They failed at this, thank God. They were hell bent on destruction, and reports are that they were forced into the library after being engaged by that lone armed guard. They killed several in that library after reloading, and eventually took their own lives in there. Can you imagine how many more would have been killed if they had not been engaged by that lone armed guard? Keep in mind that police tactics pre-Columbine did NOT involve storming the school and engaging the shooters like they are trained to do now. No, at that time the police were trained to wait for superior force, SWAT teams, and securing perimeters before going in. So all that combined still leads me to believe, as Obama apparently does as well, that placing armed guards in schools can save lives. How’s that for real world data?
And Susan,
Here’s another link with a bevy of “real world data” along with citations, if that’s what you’re truly interested in.
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
“On every question of construction (of the constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June12, 1823
The Complete Jefferson
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=875&chapter=64065&layout=html&Itemid=27
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”
Samuel Adams
http://archive.org/details/debatesproceedin00massrich
“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.
Alexander Hamilton
Federalist No. 33, January 3, 1788”
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa33.htm
“Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.”
James Wilson
Lectures on Law, 1791
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1158&Itemid=284
With a bit of research, you can learn much of what the Founders thought about things, here:
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/
http://oll.libertyfund.org/
http://www.constitution.org/liberlib.htm
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?subcategory=73
http://www.constitution.org/elliot.htm
=====
The general idea behind The Bill of Rights is that these were things the government couldn’t touch, in any way, shape or form. It wasn’t a grant of rights from the government to the people. It was a matter of placing ironclad limitations on the powers of goovernment.
‘Shall not be infringed’ should be quite clear to any english speaking human being.
Good article, but too simplistic of a view on a complex topic. I don’t know what the correct answer is to gun control, but I can see merit in both sides of the argument (though I don’t like how ‘one’ side seems to present their ideals.) I wish politicians would just talk about it. On the one hand, it makes perfect sense that “less guns = less violence,” but on the other, when you outright ban guns, you will never get them back. This is a scary thought in a world where nuclear war, anarchy, and government corruption is a real threat. What happens when we need to protect ourselves from the police at our doorstep for, let’s say, leaking confidential documents on the internet? Our government has a history of making bad decisions; sometimes I think liberals forget that. People get arrested for bad reasons, and it isn’t against the realm of possibility that the country may have to unite one day, apart from the politicians.
It’s not a conspiracy theory or overstatement; this is a real concern. Regulation is one thing, but an outright ban is a totally different animal. You are taking away a real form of self-defense if everything goes to hell. Look at Mexico; if you ban the guns, then only the Cartel has them.
I’m not taking a side here. I just want people to be open-minded. This coming from a bleeding-heart liberal who grew up conservative, and with guns.
“What happens when we need to protect ourselves from the police at our doorstep for, let’s say, leaking confidential documents on the internet?”
Does this mean you’d use a gun against those police on your doorstep? *smh* I don’t think that would be a very good idea.
REGULATE
to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
militia
a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
National Guard
The volunteer military forces of each state, which the governor of a state can summon in times of civil disorder or natural disaster..
POSSE
a body of persons summoned by a sheriff to assist in preserving the public peace usually in an emergency
Martial Law
The exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory.
Dateline: December 12, 20.. Pheonix Arizona
Today Govenor Jan Brewer declared a State of Emergency in response to FILL IN THE BLANK. The National Guard has been ordered to mobilize, and all County ,and City Officials have been notified to activate all reserve peace officers and deputies.
Dateline: December 29, 20.. Pheonix Arizona
Today Govenor Jan Brewer declared Martial in response to overwhelming FILL IN THE BLANK. The National Guard being used to maintain law and order in the large cities in the State of Arizona, County Sheriffs have had to resort to forming posses. In more remote areas of the state, small towns with only a handful of law enforcement officers Town Councils and Mayors have called for volunteers to be under to direct control of thier respective Chiefs of Police.
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 Dictionary of The English Language by Samuel Johnson, LL.D. and John Walker. ( Stanford Library ) published M.DCCC.XXVIII pg 44 —– ARMS “weapons of offense or defense” Same source — “INFRINGE” “to violate; to break laws or contracts; to destroy or hinder”
“well regulated” is a phrase from the same time period. The defined meanings were “properly functioning” or “correctly adjusted” or “of proper design for an intended purpose”
Therefore the 2nd Amendment could be understood as “A properly functioning militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear weapons of offense or defense shall not be violated or hindered””
These definitions were in common use at the time and any person looking up those words in a (at the time ) newly purchased Dictionary, would have understood the meaning as interpreted.”
the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not dependent on the existence of a militia, but the existence of a militia DEPENDS upon the people having weapons of offense or defense.”
Redefining what “is” is might be fun, but you are completely wrong. “Well Regulated” in this case and every other, means well-regulated. Now let’s see, who would regulate a militia meant to defend the state?… could it be THE GOVERNMENT?
Yes, and that’s what “IS” is. Your definition is unimportant and irrelevant.
Dude, how can you say this? Take the term “liberal,” for example. At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, the term liberal meant something completely different than what it means today. Clearly you can see that, right? If not, just look it up. A textual or contextual reading of the founding documents is totally valid and important in this discussion and many other legal discussions, any attempt to dismiss or invalidate such readings is, well…to use your words, “unimportant and irrelevant.” The only person I’ve ever heard trying to redefine the definition of the word “is” was our beloved 42nd President, Mr. William Jefferson Clinton, in front of a Grand Jury…I’m sure you’re a big fan, John.