“We need to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” – Eric Holder, former U.S. Attorney General
There has been a Gun-Free Zone shooting every day of President Barack Obama’s second term. It has become yet another hallmark of Omerica.
And now he’s calling for national “gun safety laws” to stop “gun violence” in America.
Many Politicians and pundits point to “assault rifles” and “high-capacity magazines” and insist they don’t belong in a civilized society. Back in the 1970s, they said the same thing about “Saturday Night Specials” in New York City.
Gun control zealots will target firearms whether they carry 30 rounds or 5 bullets in a snub-nose revolver. And they’ll come up with scary names.
Then they trot out the nonsense statistics and scenarios.
“You have a greater chance of having a gun taken and used against you than if you don’t have a gun.”
Really? Well, what chance do we have to defend ourselves with a gun if we don’t have a gun at all?
The “x times more likely” statistics focus on relative risk rather than actual percentages. Saying you’re more like to have a gun taken if you have a gun is a tautology rather than useful data. Think about it – how much “more likely” are you to drown in a bathtub in your home if you have a bathtub than if you don’t?
But all of this is beside the point because the Second Amendment guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Wait – that’s not the entire text! “It’s about militias,” as Meathead told Archie Bunker in All in the Family.
Actually, there are two opening clauses. Neither of which diminish the main point of the sentence.
“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.”
Since people think in terms of concepts and definitions, let’s consider the first clause.
“Well-regulated” meant fine-tuned (not controlled), and the militia was synonymous with the people because it was composed of ordinary citizens. In other words, the people were armed and ready to defend themselves against enemies foreign or domestic.
The second clause emphasizes how important the first clause is to maintaining Liberty: “Being necessary to the security of a free State.”
Actually, the opening clauses of the Second Amendment strengthen the main point that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
Just recently somebody told me that the Second Amendment only applied to muskets. “We didn’t have AR-15s back in those days!”
Only muskets? They actually had flintlock rifles too, which were even better. But the point is the government had arms and so did the people. In fact, we had more.
But the AR-15 objection implies that technology somehow diminishes our rights. Notice that these same people never claim that technology does that in the First Amendment. After all, the Founders didn’t anticipate radio, TV or the Internet – all of which enhance our freedom of speech and of the Press.
It’s one thing to disagree with the Second Amendment’s guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But it’s dishonest to pretend it doesn’t say what it says, or mean what it means.