A well regulated militia, being nesseceary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Above is the unabridged Second Amendment as it was written (or penned if you prefer).
I keep hearing people say that we dont need assault rifles to hunt. Well we don’t. But what does hunting have to do with the Second Amendment?
I’m no ballistics expert but I’m pretty sure that a bow and arrow had much better accuracy and range for effective hunting than the muskets of the late 1700’s. But of course hunting is in no way implied anyway.
The 2nd Amendment was clearly intended to ensure a system of checks and balances against the development of a tyrannical government. After defeating England the sentiment was that the people should never again be vulnerable to rule by force as opposed to rule by consensus. Such a thing could only be ensured (at that time) by arming and organizing the general population.
If you don’t believe me I encourage you to bore yourself to death by reading some of the writings of our so called forefathers, or as I like to call them, the foreskin fathers. People like James Madison made it perfectly clear what the intention of the regulated miilitia was for. I won’t give you references though. Your homework is your responsibility.
Of course today most gun owners don’t belong to militias. They hunt, shoot skeet, or keep them for home and personal protection.
Today’s federal government tends to frown on private citizens assembling organized militias. It has a history of not ending so well.
The people of the late 18th Century could have never imagined a state in which the people were completely outmatched by the machine…
Or could They?
Obviously they could
Does that mean that any Tom, Dick, or Harriet should be able to possess nuclear warheads or smallpox blankets?
Or does the Second Amendment only pertain to firearms?
What about cannons or rocket propelled grenade launchers?
We don’t need assault rifles you say?
We also dont need cigarettes, energy drinks, or Cardi B. We dont need free speech zones and we dont need The Nanny State telling us that we cant ride in the backs of pick up trucks or that kids can’t have lemonade stands.
Or is banning certain guns a matter of public safety?
In an era of mass shootings it is of course a serious matter worth lots of consideration.
Where I come from guns are common household items. I grew up with shotguns, rifles, and pistols around. I shot guns as a young boy. Lots of people in rural areas grew up in a culture of guns. They learned proper gun safety as children and they own guns responsibly.
Convincing law abiding gun owners to lay down their arms will be met with much resistance.
But they will pass legislation.
A couple generations later nobody will miss them anymore than I miss bell bottom pants and 8-track audio tapes. They literally won’t know what they missed. Guns will become a folk legend. Something that people’s grandparents experienced.
Is the Second Amendment outdated and no longer relevant?
It is illegal for the average civilian to possess a firearm throughout much of Europe today. One could argue that the people are safer in those countries as a result. It’s common knowledge that more people are killed in a single American city by guns anually than in all of Western Europe.
But most of those guns were attained illegally.
Perhaps the people of Europe have become docile and are more suseptable to the tryrany of a fascist Nanny State regulating their speech and behavior?
Did the Foreskin Fathers have other reasons?
Ironically the same people who stressed the necessity of securing a free state each owned hundreds of slaves. They also knew that abolition was an impending concern that would eventually have to be dealt with. If you don’t believe that had anything to do with it, again, I encourage you to do some independent reading on the topic.
Do guns make us safer?
Believe it or not, in many states in America you will likely go to prison if you shoot a burglar. Yes, you saved your possessions and perhaps even your family, but unless you are law enforcement you will probably be in trouble. Furthermore if the police (or military) suddenly raid your premises having guns increases your chances of getting shot.
Donald Trump does not support the Second Amendment.
Whatever a politician says believe the opposite. Obama spoke for gun reform while none of his proposals had much impact on gun ownership. Trump touted the importance of preserving an uninfringed Second Amendment while passing several restrictions. Neither side of the false political paradigm will believe me though. People choose to believe bullshit memes that support their feelings over facts.
There are compelling arguments on both sides and there are also plenty of ridiculous ones.
I’ve seen crazy shit on Facebook the likes of arming teachers and having retired military veterans placed in school corridors with guns.
I’ve heard plenty of propaganda suggesting that restrictions on semi-automatic rifles would reduce incidents. I’m not sure. As long as they are manufactured they are accessible. Still maybe some incidents would be prevented.
Regardless of the argument the amendment says shall not be infringed. It doesn’t say you have to provide reasoning for having a gun. It doesn’t say you have to have a clean bill of mental health or be a hunter.
But no matter what they say both parties are actively working towards the prohibition of guns.
What does it matter to me?
I don’t even own a gun(s)…
Or do I?
Thanks for Reading
Leave a Reply