2nd Amendment Absolutist
I believe that the guys who wrote our constitution were pretty smart. I believe that they new exactly what they wanted to say, and wrote it down in a clear and precise manner. I believe that the constitution of this nation, the foundation on which our nation was built, means exactly what it says it means.
When the founders wrote the words ‘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.’, they meant it. Luckily, I’m not the only one. In a recent decision, the DC district court agreed with me, and said so in a clear and well thought out decision. Unfortunately, I read Internet posts that discuss how some people shouldn’t be allowed to own firearms, or how restrictions on some types of guns make sense.
Recently, Jim Zumbo made the unforgivable mistake of discussing AR-15 style rifles, stating ‘I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them “terrorist” rifles.’ Mr. Zumbo has been publicly flogged for his arrogance, and has contritely apologized, several times. He even made a trip into the field with legendary 2nd amendment supporter Ted Nugent with an AR-15 rifle, to make up for his lack of vision.
I really don’t care much about Zumbo, he made a blatantly stupid mistake, was taken to task by millions of readers, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s a dead issue. What I do care about is the ‘death by 1000 nicks’ that’s happening on public bulletin boards across the Internet. Statements that are every bit as destructive to our 2nd amendment rights as those made by Zumbo are accepted without so much as a whimper.
The trigger for this particular rant was a single thread on an Internet board that I frequent. The author, who I don’t intend to identify, slander or insult, told a story of a person he knows that was going to start carrying a firearm. The person in question doesn’t appear to know one end of a gun from the other, and isn’t interested in learning the difference. Ok, so I understand how this would cause concern. While reading through the next 5 pages of responses, I found several people who claimed that they were once 2nd amendment ‘absolutists’, but have since changed their mind. There were recommendations of mandatory training for firearm ownership, stricter purchasing requirements, and recommendations to firearms instructors that they refuse to pass people who took their CCW classes.
At this point, I just shook my head, and went on with my day. Still, it stayed there, in the back of my mind, poking at my subconscious. How can 2nd amendment supporters recommend further government regulation on our already trampled upon 2nd amendment rights? Unbelievable! Do these people really understand what they are asking for?
I went back and posted a short rant… stating the obvious, that we are becoming our own worst enemy. That some of the responses in this thread would look quite appropriate if they appeared on BradyCampaign.org. I tried to be polite, and didn’t call anyone out individually… and I won’t be doing so. It was the general feeling of the thread, more than any individual post.
Anyway, here goes… My explanation as to why I am a 2nd amendment absolutist, and why I believe that every freedom loving American should feel the same.
The 2nd amendment puts teeth in the constitution, and in the bill of rights. Without it, there is no way for ‘We, the People’ to ensure that government corruption remains at an acceptable level. There is no doubt that government corruption exists… power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. With the 2nd amendment, our founding fathers put in place a mechanism whereby absolute power would never rest with a single group of people.
Anyone who believes that the 2nd amendment deals with hunting needs to read the Federalist papers. Unless you’re hunting politicians, the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting. It has everything to do with defense. Self defense, local defense, and national defense. A Nation of Riflemen. The American Militia. No army, from within or without, can defeat a well-armed population. That’s what the founding fathers envisioned. Anyone who denies that position is either ignorant of the facts, or intellectually dishonest.
Our 2nd amendment rights have been under attack for nearly a century now. The first salvo came with the NFA in 1934. Thousands upon thousands of laws now rest on that first infringement. As with many later gun bans, this law was crafted very carefully, to affect the largest number of firearms possible, without upsetting enough people to cause a public outcry. It creates different categories of firearms, where none existed before. It banned guns based on action type, barrel length, and caliber. Since they were worried about the 2nd amendment challenge that was sure to come, they didn’t ban these firearms outright, but established a registry, and an exorbitant tax on these firearms. How can you consider a $200 tax on what was at that time a $10 shotgun anything but infringement?
I believe that all free citizens of this nation should stand for the idea that all firearms laws should roll back to what we had before 1934. If the 2nd amendment means what it says, then firearms are as protected as speech. It should be no more difficult for a law abiding citizen of these United States to purchase a firearm or ammunition for that firearm than it would be to purchase a book, or a newspaper. (credit where credit is due… John Ross first suggested this relationship)
Ask yourself these questions: Do you support a system of concealed carry permits? What other right do I need a permit to exercise? Do you support mandatory firearms training? What other right am I forced to show proof of training before I can exercise that right? Should I have to undergo a background check to purchase a firearm? How about applying the same logic to me writing this article?
The minute that we accept as a good thing any restriction on buying or carrying firearms, we give our adversaries exactly what they are looking for. The mindset that there is no right to keep and bear arms, but instead a privilege, to be licensed, taxed, granted, or denied at the whim of the government. I will never accept that it should be so. I will continue to vote for those people who agree with me, and I will continue to make my opinions know to those who don’t agree.
How about you? Do you believe in the right to keep and bear arms? Or do you believe that the government has the right to control, even eliminate, civilian ownership of firearms? There really isn’t any middle ground on this one.