The right to keep and bear arms was put into our Constitution to protect our liberty. It was meant as protection from others who may use their free will to harm. The founders believed deeply that we have the right to life, liberty and personal property. They also believed that we have the right to protect our lives, liberty and property from ALL who may wish to infringe upon our rights, or take them from us. There has always been evil in the world, and there will always be evil. Bad people exist, and without severely encroaching upon the liberty of our citizens, we can never completely eliminate violence or murder. The best we can do is to severely reduce to amount of violence and murder that takes place, by any means necessary, within the powers of the Constitution. To believe otherwise is nothing short of delusional. The founders understood this. They reasoned that because there is always a chance that others will try to inflict harm upon you, we must be able to protect ourselves, and so we have the right to keep and bear arms. This is where Liberals will scram, “They said the militia needs guns! The 2nd amendment is about Militias!” Calm down Don Lemon fans, and listen to the TRUTH for a change. What the Constitution says is, “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.” Some people focus on “Militia” or the “reason” for this right, while others say that regardless of the “reason” it is clear that we “the people” have the right to keep and bear arms. I happen to believe that the reason IS important, and that it is BECAUSE of the reason that the founders believed this is a God given right.
The term “regulated” has a very different meaning in general use today than it did in this specific instance more than 2 centuries ago. We say “regulated” to describe something that has rules, guidelines and procedures governing its existence, such as food standards or business practices. Driving a car is a regulated practice. Interactions with the environment are highly regulated. The meaning of “regulation” today is defined as “an official rule, law, or order stating what may or may not be done or how something must be done.” Even if we are never explicitly taught this term, it is easy to understand when we hear people say, “environmental regulations,” “banking regulations,” or “firearm regulations.” Naturally, when we read “well regulated militia” in the 2nd amendment, we automatically think “a militia governed by various rules and procedures.” That thinking is simply incorrect, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, we’re talking about more than 200 years of language evolution. Before you start arguing about “what it says” and “what they meant,” you have to look first at the language itself and what we KNOW about the words they used. For example, the term “regulated,” in the 1700s, meant the same thing it means today- sometimes. Like many other words, “regulated” had multiple used depending on what people were talking about. The other, quite commonly used meaning of the term was “Properly Disciplined.” Properly disciplined, or “practiced,” means something very different from, “guided by rules or laws stating what can and cannot be done.” So, you have to look at the context of the usage to determine what definition was being referenced (Anyone remember learning context clues in school?). Here is the full text of the second amendment:
“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.”
This is still somewhat foggy. So let’s look at what “Militia” meant. In general, could refer to EITHER the actual active militia enlisted for service, or, more broadly, the available men that could be called up to serve in the militia-which was basically every able bodied male of a certain age. So now we have “well regulated Militia” equating to “properly disciplined citizens that can be called to serve in the militia” So the Liberal argument becomes, “We have the National Guard and we don’t have militias anymore, so the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply. There is no individual right to have and use guns.” My reply is simple- don’t jump the gun (I’ve been looking for the right place to be punny). As I said, in Colonial America, the “militia” consisted of every able bodied male of a certain age, they could be called up to serve at any time (today we would consider this to be every able bodied PERSON). Alexander Hamilton explained that expert military skill is not learned in a day or a month, but over the course of many years of practice and development. So, those eligible to serve in the militia should have the right to keep arms so they may become disciplined, or “well regulated,” in using them. An effective militia was important to the founders because they believed it to be “the best and most natural defense of a free country,” as James Madison put it. They understood that free men must be able to defend themselves, and should never resign their defense solely to the standing Army of the government. In other words, the people should be disciplined in arms so that they may defend themselves- from the government just as much as from any foreign invader. Their idea of “Militia” was the whole of the people, everyone willing to fight for freedom and against tyranny. These men understood tyranny and liberty. They lived through the tyranny of the crown, and fought fiercely for the liberty of their nation, our nation. They knew that tyranny can come at any moment, from any direction, and that only constant vigilance would keep it at bay. Part of that vigilance included preparations for defending ourselves. Free men must be able to protect their freedom, from individuals as well as foreign threats, and most importantly, from their own government. Alexander Hamilton said:
“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens” (Federalist 29)
In other words, should the government raise an Army (which we have) it could not be used against the people, at the direction of a tyrannical government (or any other entity for that matter), so long as a large body of citizens of close to equal, or better skill are ready to fight for their God-given rights. The right to bear arms was never about hunting, or sport, or even a military need. It was always about defending freedom. If the government decides to strip us of our rights, which they have no authority to do since our rights come from our creator, then we must be able to defend ourselves, and with ample discipline. Therefore, every person, able and willing to defend their freedom should the moment come, has the right to keep and bear arms, for it is necessary to become skilled with those arms if we are to be able to defend our rights. We the people are the “well regulated Militia.”
Now, it is clear that the government has no authority to take away the right to bear arms. It does not come from them, and therefore it is not for them to decide to take it away. If the government wants to take gun rights, they first have to make a constitutional amendment stating that government creates and allocates rights. Second, they have to make a constitutional amendment repealing the second amendment, and possibly replace it with something like, “The right to keep and bear arms shall be infringed upon at the government’s discretion.” That can’t happen. The government CANNOT amend the constitution to say that our rights come from government rather than our Creator. That is not an amendment, it is a fundamental change (hmm…) that completely upends the principles that our country was founded on, built on and survives on. To amend the Constitution to convey that our rights come from government rather than God is nothing short of treason. So either all citizens who wish to defend their liberty have the right to keep and bear arms, or the government must commit a collective act of treason.
It’s sad and frightening that some people, who are out in the world driving cars, interacting with other humans and possibly procreating, need to have COMMON SENSE explained to them. I will never understand how people with no concept of common sense can get themselves dressed in the morning, let alone be elected to public office. But it happens, and for the time being it seems all we can do it beat them over the head with common sense, hoping that some might seep in. For those people out there, let me make this as simple as I can:
First of all, I'd like to point to two places where gun control logic- no guns = no crimes- fails to hold true.
Chicago, IL: Strictest gun control laws in the nation, AND the highest murder rate in the nation
Switzerland: All men are required to serve in the Swiss military for a certain amount of time. They are given hand guns and rifles to keep in their homes and become proficient with. Their society teaches a deep belief that citizens share a civic responsibility to possess the knowledge, abilities and equipment to defend themselves and others. Lowest crime rates IN THE WORLD.
Obviously it is not the presence or absence of guns that determines the rate of murders, or even crime in general. Here are some more common sense arguments against gun control…
**Guns Don’t Kill People, and neither do planes, or knives or cars. People kill people.
It happens every day, worldwide. If we didn’t have guns, then knives or bats, lead pipes, or something else would take their place. It’s not about the weapon. It’s always about what is going on in the mind of the person holding the gun. Whether the person doesn’t value life, or they believe the ends justify the means or they have serious mental health issues, it takes a mental commitment to pull the trigger of a gun with the intent to hurt or kill another person. Whether you’re talking about a police officer shooting a criminal in the line of duty, or a sociopath cutting someone down for pleasure, they have to make a mental decision to pull the trigger. Virtuous people who value life only make a decision like that if it is the only option. It’s not a decision made lightly for a person that respects life, and the weapon in their hand- like a police officer, or citizens defending themselves. Some people do not think in those terms. Some people make the decision to pull the trigger with no thought whatsoever about the person in front of the barrel or what it means to kill. In either case, the WEAPON makes no decisions, it exercises no free will and it kills NO ONE. So the way to reign in gun crime is not to pass gun control legislation, because people will find another means of carrying out their crime. You have to start by asking “Why do people kill?” It’s a question with many answers, but it has to be asked. It will take time and a lot of effort to come up with specific answers, but it has to be done if we are going to be serious about lowering murder rates. Once we are able to come up with those answers, we can then move to “How do we keep THOSE things from occurring and/or keep people from deciding to KILL in those situations?” THEN we can implement the policies and legislation that come with the answers to that second question. It all starts with asking the right questions and looking for real answers, rather than reacting out of fear and ignorance.
**Driving drunk and possessing/using Heroine are illegal and PEOPLE STILL FIND WAYS TO DO IT.
The scarier thought is how many people manage to get away with these crimes completely unnoticed. Criminals who are intent on committing crimes will commit crimes regardless, unless the punishments for those crimes are swift, certain and severe. Even then, some people will still break the law. Taking guns away is not the answer because it is merely one avenue of committing crimes. Even taking away ALL avenues for committing the crime will not fix anything. Only addressing WHY crimes happens will lead to real solutions. Banning things used to commit crimes does nothing.
**If no one who respects and is trained to use guns is allowed to have them, then the criminals who wish to do harm, most of whom have ILLEGALLY obtained their weapons in the first place, will be the only ones in possession of guns.
As I said, criminals will commit crimes, even if they have to use illegally obtained weapons (crazy right? Criminals committing crimes, with criminally obtained weapons…who’d have thought?). Criminals are not law abiding citizens, so laws will not stop them from being criminals and doing criminal things. Gun control laws only hurt law abiding citizens. If you take guns away from those who intend to use them properly, those who respect the weapon and its uses, and who wish to protect their own rights as well as those of others around them, you punish the very people you pretend to be protecting. If lawful citizens can’t have guns, then criminals will be much less deterred from committing crimes.
**The answer is not in restricting or deterring gun ownership. It’s in deterring crime with severe & certain consequences, and finding ways to combat the mental decision to commit murder.
If punishments for crimes are not swift, certain and just severe enough, they will not deter crime. That is one of the biggest problems we have in America when it comes to crime. Punishment certainly doesn't always happen swiftly. People get out on bail, trials take months or years to take place and even after they are over, there are appeals that can tie the process up for a very long time. Yes, criminals can sit in jail awaiting trial and sentencing but that is a generic consequence. What I mean by that is that it's not the punishment for drug trafficking, or embezzlement or murder. It’s the limbo between arrest and punishment. The time between arrest and sentence needs to be very small so that criminals know their punishment is coming quickly. The tougher issue is the time between the commission of a crime and the arrest. If criminals know that they will be caught quickly, i.e. the police are very good at solving crimes and tracking perps, it will deter them from making the attempt. If we can just get to the point that people know they will get caught, that will do a lot. Of course, that’s assuming they give a damn about jail or other punishments in the first place, which is yet another piece to this puzzle- one that gets its roots in upbringing- but I digress.
The second piece to the crime deterrent equation is certainty. Not only do criminals need to know that consequences will come quickly, they need to know with certainty that X punishment goes with Y crime. They need to know that they WILL be caught and the WILL go to jail, lose rights, privileges, etc. There is a lot of wiggle room in what punishments go with which crimes. Plea bargains often turn big crimes into minor sentences. The judicial process often leads to a dead end when evidence does not prove guilt, or at least a lesser sentence. Loopholes and shifty lawyers/judges often find ways to change or ignore the rules. There are numerous factors that create a haze between crime and punishment. Without clearly defined punishments and at least some degree of certainty of being caught, criminals will not be deterred from breaking the law.
The final key is severity. The punishment for any crime has to be severe enough that it’s not worth the spoils of the crime to have to endure the punishment. If you know that 1 DWI conviction (or guilty plea) WILL land you in jail and take a sizable chunk of money out of your pocket, you'll be much less likely to drive drunk. Likewise, if you KNOW committing any crime with a gun carries a mandatory sentence of ten years in prison, and a minimum of life in jail for any non-self defense homicide, it's going to deter people from taking that step. I'm not saying these examples of sentences are the answer, I'm saying that punishments need to be amply severe for all crimes. I think a lot of punishments are probably severe enough as they stand, IF you add in swiftness and certainty to the equation. Bottom line- our justice system needs a full and thorough review of policies, procedures, laws, punishments, etc. And we need to find ways to make punishments swift and certain (most important at this point) and then we can begin to determine which punishments are severe enough, when they are coupled with swiftness and certainty, to ACTUALLY deter crime. Gun control laws will not to the trick.
The mental aspect of murder, or any crime for that matter, is tougher to approach, but not impossible. As I said before, the first step is asking, "Why do people kill?" That is the key. Some people kill out of anger. Some kill because they are sociopaths. Some people kill because they believe they need to so survive in their lives (people that are surrounded by violence, as in the drug world, organized crime and people that grew up in violent neighborhoods). Whatever the case, it takes some degree of a mental commitment to take a life. Spontaneous murders require a person to decide, at least for a short time, that they want/need to take a life, whatever the reason may be. Planned murders take a deeper, more sinister commitment. The point here is that different circumstances, different mental conditions and different life experiences equate to numerous different possible reasons for why a person would take a life. I would venture to guess that there are a few basic, general reasons (chemical imbalances in the brain, psychological disorders and conditions that make people think it’s OK, etc.) that break down into many different specific reasons, but for now that is merely my opinion. If we focus out efforts on the reasons that people kill, we can begin to take real steps to prevent the mental commitment to kill. Whether it involves medical treatment or psychological therapy or even something as simple as making people aware of the dangers of violent people and situations (and teaching people to avoid them), there are answers out there if we look for them. It's not about the weapon, it's about the people.
A less obvious but equally important part of this discussion is what people learn growing up- and here we go back to education again. Without a comprehensive reform of what and how we teach our children, none of our problems can be fixed for any length of time. It has to start in the home, but before parents will teach virtue to their children, they have to learn it themselves. So we have to start with teaching it in schools. Then, once those kids begin to enter adulthood and have children of their own, they will begin teaching it in their homes. Then we will have it starting with the parents and being reinforced in schools. Only once we make virtue a central principle of our society will we be able to return to the prosperous days we once knew. We are never going to completely eradicate crime, especially not under the current way of doing things. But if we teach everyone to be virtuous people instead of simply hoping they will catch on, it just makes sense, common sense, that more and more people will latch on to the concept as time goes on. With enough time, we will see real results.
Before I finish, I want to touch on one more important deterrent for criminals- Concealed Carry laws. Concealed Carry laws do a lot to deter crime. If anyone can be permitted to carry a firearm, and they have to be properly trained in order to be able to carry, then anyone around you at any time could have a gun, AND have the skill to put and end not only to your crime, but to you yourself. Anyone around you can stop you from committing a crime, and the threat of a swift and certain end goes way up. The stakes go up, there's a higher probability of being shot and/or killed, so the "benefit" of committing the crime goes way down in relation to the possible consequences. I believe Alexander Hamilton's view applies here too. If every citizen willing, and properly trained, is equipped to protect their rights and the rights of others, the criminals don't stand a chance. We should be teaching people that our rights our sacred and should be protected. We should be encouraging people to become experienced and skilled with arms so that they are able to protect their liberty should the occasion arise in which they need to do so. That, my friends, will significantly decrease the crime we see in our country. Gun restrictions are not an answer. Short term and long term, they don't do what they are intended to do, quite the opposite in fact. Respect for the weapon, training with the weapon and a deep respect for life, liberty and personal property ARE answers. The founders knew this, and so do those of us who are capable of thinking past weak-minded fear of firearms.
I leave you with the words of a few of the founders:
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." James Madison
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison
"When the Government comes for the people's arms, the people must be prepared to keep them. This is true of every right endowed to us by our Creator. If we are to remain free, we must remain armed." S.R. Daniel (Not a Founder)
Stay Conservative, and Keep Looking to the Future
No comments:
Post a Comment