In a previous post, I revealed a supposedly pro-gun CBS news report on women shooters as an attempt to drive a wedge through the firearms fraternity. To present long gun target shooting as acceptable while linking [all] handguns with “gun violence.” To suggest that using firearms for self-defense and/or defense against tyranny is beyond the pale. It’s a disconnect promoted by advocates of civilian disarmament. We don’t mind some guns, but not guns that can be used against people. It’s a position that brings the antis face-to-face with their mortal enemy . . .
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Founding Fathers created and ratified the Second Amendment as a defense against tyranny. Which could involve, you know, shooting people. Specifically, foreign troops trying to impose their will on Americans or domestic forces trying to impose tyranny on people living in a “free state.”
Guns for hunting? Self-defense? Yeah the 2A protected – and continues to protect – those firearms-related activities. But I think we can all agree that the Second Amendment wasn’t enacted so that upper-class southern white women could bust some clays. Which is why the antis continue to focus in on the Second Amendment’s prefatory “militia clause.”
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.
The antis would have Americans believe that the “well regulated militia” means that gun rights are restricted to people who are part of an organized militia. This despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, and that all the other rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights. And the fact that various state constitutions echo the Second Amendment without the militia clause (e.g., Rhode Island).
With that rhetorical rug pulled from under their feet, the antis retreat to the argument (such as it is) that Americans’ gun rights are not absolute rights. “You have the right to free speech but you don’t have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie house.” In this they are absolutely correct. But it’s a point which supports gun right rather than refutes them.
The Second Amendment prohibit the government from infringing on our right to “keep and bear arms.” It does not prohibit the government from passing laws restricting gun use – independent of keeping (owning) and bearing (carrying) arms (aimed weapons).
Using this common sense interpretation, local, state or federal governments can decree when and where you are legally allowed to shoot clays, animals or human beings. The government can also define and prohibit brandishing. But the 2A does not allow laws that prohibit you from keeping (i.e. owning) a “high capacity” ammunition magazine, an “assault rifle” or indeed a fully automatic rifle. Nor can it stop you from bearing (i.e. carrying) a gun into a government building, school or any other public space.
I have no idea why the Supreme Court would allow governments to infringe on Americans natural, civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The idea that it’s OK to do so because the laws are “reasonable regulations” in the interests of public safety is ludicrous. Our specifically enumerated gun rights trump considerations of social order, the pursuit of which invites abuse like Playboy centerfolds invite onanism.
When they’re not busy trying to come up with a new angle to restrict Americans’ gun rights, the antis pursue a divide and conquer strategy. We invite all “reasonable” gun owners to support our push for “common sense” gun laws, so that we can defeat the “gun rights extremists” who put their sick, selfish desire for firepower above the safety of the people. Anyone who buys that line fails to understand the document that protects all their rights. And endangers those of us who do.