I’ve read recently where the current administration/Congress is contemplating adding many new costs and hurdles to those that buy, sell, or trade firearms and purchase ammunition for those firearms. My take: they simply do no know or care what a ‘right’ is. Let’s dig.
What exactly is a ‘right’? This definition is critical to this discussion, because disagreement here and no other common ground can be had. At the time of the Founding Fathers, they believed a ‘right’ was a God-given ability that, while codified in the US Constitution, was bestowed as a birthright. The ability to speak one’s own mind. The ability to worship as one saw fit, and the prevention of the creation of a State-sponsored church. The first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution are known as the ‘Bill Of Rights’—those things government cannot infringe upon its citizens.
Central to this discussion is the 2nd 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 generally referred to as the ‘right to bear arms’. Over the years, words and phrases of this Amendment have garnered strict and unending scrutiny. Why did they add ‘A well regulated Militia’? One thing is certain: ‘shall not be infringed’ is pretty stout wording. There is little doubt that the Founders simply did not want government messing with this right. It doesn’t say, ‘citizens may be allowed’ arms. It doesn’t say, ‘citizens may hunt or sport shoot’ arms. And it doesn’t say, ‘if you have some poor usage, this is pliable, allowable, behavior.’ But a few centuries of legal maneuvering and chipping away, bit-by-bit, have us in our current status. Regardless of the precise Constitutional wording, the government is trying their damnedest to ‘infringe’.
Estimates vary wildly, but the latest numbers of gun owners and firearms in private citizen’s hands are astounding. Over 400 MILLION firearms are in private possession, along with over 1 TRILLION rounds of ammunition! Casual hunters in the US would be the worlds largest standing army in the history of mankind. Folks, if gun ownership was as dangerous as Progressives would have you believe, there simply wouldn’t be any non-gunowners left alive by now.
But Congress continues to attempt to rein in a problem, from their point of view. Since the 1960s, Congress has been trying to put restrictions upon firearm ownership. From an attempted ‘assault weapons ban’ (there is no legal definition of ‘assault weapon’—‘assault’ is a verb, not a noun), to limiting ‘high-capacity magazines’ (as if the number of rounds available tends one toward mass-shooting), to declaring various areas as ‘gun-free zones’ (criminal-speak for ‘likely unarmed target area’). Notice none of these attempts actually disarms criminals, who, by definition, break whatever laws are in place anyway)? No, they just attempt to disarm law-abiding people, and remove their ability to protect themselves—from criminals or government.
This last batch of ‘regulations’ would criminalize otherwise law-abiding folks virtually overnight. Own a Glock? Since many have magazines in excess of 10 rounds, you may be a felon by owning such a weapon. Want to give your firearm, that has been in the family for decades, to your son or daughter? Another felony, as you haven’t forced your child thru a background check. And so on. My take on all attempts by government to ‘infringe’ upon citizens’ right to bear arms:
1. Governments want to take away your guns because they plan on doing something they should be shot for doing.
2. Government knows that an armed citizenry is the last condition of a free citizenry.
3. Government knows that the true limits of their ability to rule its people, rather than govern them, rests in the people’s ability to defend themselves, from all enemies, foreign or domestic.
4. Government knows that police are nearly always an ‘after the crime’ presence. To prevent a crime in progress requires that the citizens be able to defend themselves. Remove that ability, it is survival of the fittest, and the criminal element will overrun all others.
In a sane world, no limitations would pass the Supreme Court’s Constitutional muster–‘shall not be infringed’ is pretty clear. And almost all cases brought before the Court have reaffirmed the ‘right to bear arms’, and hurdles to that have been struck down. But do we really want to trust the Court on the validity of our ‘rights’? Congress is supposed to know the Constitution, and be another safeguard against passing unconstitutional laws in the first place. One thing is clear to this author: gun ownership is something the citizenry takes quite seriously. If you are looking for an issue to anger the most people in the shortest span of time, you may have found your Revolutionary Breaking Point.
