?

Gun Control: Another Argument


A Stroll Through History

The Revolutionary War ended officially in 1783. The Second Amendment to the Constitution was submitted in 1789 and ratified in 1791. The Second Amendment came after the war ended. In other words, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with wartime; it has to do with arming citizens during peacetime.

The core of the Second Amendment arises from an English precedent, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which addresses the disarming of Protestants and the arming of Catholics. Sir William Blackstone wrote that “this is the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

This addresses today’s major issues, Resist and Persist. How can one resist the tyrannical government without arms? This question has been posed to many liberal “resisters” today, namely, “If Trump is a tyrant, then don’t you want a gun?” In other words, if those who “Resist” say guns should be controlled or banned by the government, they cannot truly be Resistors but must be considered Oppressors.

Semantics

While the Second Amendment does say that the arming of a civilian is a function of protecting the State(s) through a well-regulated militia, the U.S. vs. Miller (1939) caused the Supreme Court to say that the right to bear arms is individually held. DC vs. Heller (2008) caused the court to limit appropriate individual bearing (keeping and carrying) of arms to “confrontation,” but it is well-understood that lesser activities, such as practice, hunting, and simple carrying, are also protected. How can one be prepared to confront if one cannot carry? Is one to run back to the storage locker and ask the oppressor (whether criminal or government) to please, wait a moment?

DC vs. Heller also indicated a “reasonable” limitation against felons and the mentally ill from bearing arms. While this is reasonable, there is concern that an activist oppressor government and its willing stooges shall cause non-felons to become felons, and the mentally stable to be legally labeled “mentally ill,” in order to take guns through fraudulent means and channels. While many do not like this idea, it is the very thing the right to bear arms addresses, an oppressor government.

Who Determines Mental Stability?

The standard is not whether an individual is “paranoid” of the government and therefore, should not have the right to bear arms. This constitutes arbitrary power; however, we do feel inside that some individuals bear watching and ought not to have access to weapons. It is this slight quiver in the material of freedom which is most worrisome, for who shall make the determination who is “too paranoid” to own a weapon?

It is obviously in the oppressor’s best interests to remove all opponents, and it is quite convenient to brand them as “paranoid” disqualifying them from owning a firearm. It also aids oppressors to put into the communications pipeline, the media, namely, “If you see something, say something.” This gives the impression that the government is looking out for us as a whole.

Now, when a Parkland occurs, and we find out that the government was watching Cruz and did nothing, we not only become depressed that our government has failed in its sole job to protect us, but we also become “paranoid” that perhaps this was deliberate and intentional. Further, if we speak these feelings, and are attacked not by the Right but by the Left, there is a sinking feeling that indeed the government is infiltrated and caused to stand down and appear weak.

Emasculating The Second Amendment

Consequently, whenever a Leftist screams for gun control and the government agrees with the Leftist, there is great anxiety. For, if the Right, which has no interest in emasculating the Second Amendment, were to all of a sudden demand gun control, it would appear to be from reason, a compromise of principle, at least.

From the Left, however, it is playbook; disarm the people, control the people. This is not to say there are not those on the Right seeking some form of gun control, and perhaps they are sincere but lost in the cacophony of Leftist warmongering against freedom, even reasonable voices sound unreasonable.

It causes a form of paranoia. Namely, they are indeed out to get us. We ought not to downplay this for the sake of appearing “not paranoid.” There is no reason to be coy. If they say they are going to control our guns, they are going to do it, and in the most extreme manner they can. There is no reason to be fearful to speak up lest they take your guns. They will do so regardless.

Game Plan

Now, for some strategy. When a Leftist asks you why you need “such and such” a gun, the answer is simply to make it that much more difficult to be oppressed. If the Leftist then attacks you as being “paranoid,” the answer is simply, “If I’m paranoid about being attacked, why am I being attacked?” If the Leftist asks why you cannot be happy with a different gun, the answer is simply, “This is the one I feel safest with.”

None of this will stop the motivated Leftist, but there is not much more which can be done except to invoke the Constitution, the Supreme Court rulings in place, English common law, and your own confidence in being protected. If that is not enough, then run for office, help campaign for candidates that agree with you, petition, boycott, and use all of the legal tactics at your disposal. For if we lose this right, we shall never again regain it.

Tommy Max / Writer

I am a patriot who doesn't like to see America pushed around. I stand up straight for what I believe.
previous article
Newer Post
next article
Older Post



  1. Appreciated your laying down the 2d Amendments historical foundation which makes the LEFT’s argument completely moot. Well done Sir.

    ReplyDelete

no

Name

Email *

Message *