Hands Off my Guns!

Recently I was at a dinner, when the people sitting at my table took an interest in my line of work, as often times happen, and sure enough the conversation quickly got to gun rights and the second amendment.  It is important to note that the people at this meal are accomplished, successful, and liberals.  Wouldn’t be fun otherwise, would it?

The main point of opposition that evening was the use of the term “militia” in the second amendment.  This term, no doubt, could mean different things to different people, and even supreme court justices have struggled with it in the past.   Miriam-Webster, arguably the greatest authority on English dictional and terminology, defines militia as: 

1. a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
2. a body of citizens organized for military service
1. the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

I am far from being a supreme court justice, or even as smart as the people around the table that night, but it seems to me that if I am registered for selective service, am an able bodied male (not sure why gender differs, but not the point right now), and am subject to be called for military service then I am part of the militia.  So there’s that.

That aside, I personally love it when people get hooked on the parts of a law, or in this case a RIGHT, that fits their agenda but choose to ignore the rest.  The full amendment reads: “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.”  Again, being a fool as I am, breaking it into its components makes sense to me.  We already defined militia, which we agreed applies to most males (and females…but again, that is left to discuss on a different day) over the age of 18 and without any prohibitive issues, such as mental disability and alike.  Next part states “necessary to the security of a free state".  In my mind this is the key.  Knowing history and the fact that the constitution and the bill of rights were written to provide citizens of this great nation with freedom and liberty, and especially protect them from oppression by a government, this further emphasizes why people should be allowed to own firearms.  I am not concerned with hunting, even though the sport is responsible for billions of dollars in revenue, ecological maintenance, and provide food for scores of families.  I am not concerned with sports either, even though shooting sports are one of the fastest growing sports around the nation.  I am not even concerned with street level crime, even though that is a major threat these days, and armed individuals are continuously recorded as being better able to defend themselves and prevent crime. 

I am concerned with government oppressing me, taking my rights away, including the right of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to vote, and many more.  That is what the 2nd amendment was written for, and why it is still valid today!  

Lastly, the amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  I am not sure how this could be any clearer.  It says Arms, not handguns, revolvers, machine guns, or anything else.  Simply Arms.  And as that, any arm should fit the need.  And when the liberals get all up in arms (see what I did there?) about how arms back then were different than now and it should be taken in context, I am forced to remind them that there is an evolution, and Arms are still arms, and if they want to stick to 18th century terms then women shouldn’t be able to vote either.  They don’t like that, because they know it’s true.  

(Picture curtesy of Patriot Ordnance Factory)

"Shall not be infringed".  Should I really explain what this all means?

I will leave you with a couple of closing thoughts: based on recent events, including as recent as last week in Munich, we continuously see that crime and terror acts happen regardless of gun laws. It is as if the bad guys didn't get the memo that guns are not allowed. Such countries as Germany, France, and others who have some of the strictest gun laws in the world continuously find themselves under attacks, with its civilian populous left without any means to defend themselves. Imagine being one of those victims at the mall in Munich unable to defend yourself because the powers to be decided you should not have that right. Now you are dead because, as it turns out, bad guys don't follow laws. And if it isn't guns then they will always find other means to do harm, such as a box truck hitting civilians and killing over 80 in Nice. Yes, at the end of the day no law will stop those fixated on doing harm. Only ones it affect is the law abiding citizens now left defenseless. 

Israel, that has some strict gun laws of its own, faced a resurgence in terror attacks by knife wielding terrorists. It became a daily occurrence. Most of those attacks stopped by legally armed civilians. Yes, not police, but civilians. Israel, recognizing that, actually relaxed its gun laws to allow citizens to protect themselves.  Knife attacks all by stopped.

I don’t think the argument will go away any time soon.  And I am sure the liberal agenda will continue to push to restrict and even eliminate civilian gun ownership.  But if the constitution and the Bill of Rights mean anything, then we should never allow that to happen.  Because, as the saying goes, the second amendment protects the first. And once disarmed, what would stop the powers to be from eroding other liberties?  Once disarmed there is little one can do to protect himself against a dictator, just ask the Jews of Nazi Germany, citizens of Northern Vietnam, China, Stalin’s Russia, and more.

Hitler, April 11, 1932:

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.  History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.  Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”

Is it sinking in yet?

Stay safe and watch your six.

BK Blankchtein.

Masada Tactical Protective Services, LLC (www.dhirubhai.net/company/masada-tactical / www.facebook.com/BlankchteinBK)