A Love Letter to the Second Amendment.

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it”

-Thomas Jefferson

*Note* This blog entry is not intended for the anti-gun crowd. Nor is it intended for the pro-gun crowd. Both groups have already made up their minds. No, dear reader, this is for those sitting on the fence, who, in their shock and grief over the recent mass shootings, are beginning to feel as if perhaps gun control would be a good idea. This is for those ignorant of the true purpose of the Second Amendment or gun culture in general. So please, if you know someone like that, share this article, I make no promises I can change their mind, but maybe I can give them a different view than those given out by either the pro or anti-gunners.

To say that the December 14th shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was another entry in a tragically long list of school shootings would be a gross under-statement. While the drama and heartbreak surrounding the cold-blooded murder of over two dozen people, mostly young children, immediately captured the headlines, a second, more far reaching story was about to unfold. Never one to let a crisis go to waste, the anti-gun crowd is using this to make another bid to take the teeth out of the Second Amendment, with the introduction of a new “assault weapons” ban. In light of the deaths of so many innocent victims it doesn’t sound like too bad of an idea right? I mean, in both the Aurora, Colorado shooting, as well as the Sandy Hook massacre the shooters both used AR-15 “assault rifles”. If we had restricted the availability of these types of firearms it may have prevented these senseless murders. Maybe an “assault weapons” ban is just what we need. Well maybe it is, but then again, maybe it’s not. First, let’s take a look at what an “assault weapon” is.

What comes to your mind when you hear the term “assault weapon” ? Is it a fully automatic AK-47 or M-16 like we see in the movies? I’d bet a dollar it is. Well sorry to say, you’re wrong. At least as far as the Federal Government is concerned. In fact, fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated and hard to obtain due to the Nation Firearms Act of 1934. Here is how the Federal Assault Weapons ban of 1994 defined an assault weapon. Let’s take a look at some of the qualifying criteria from the bill. For those of you out there who aren’t shooters, it may come as a bit of a shock that guns aren’t “one size fits all”. Due to differences in age, gender, and genetics, a rifle that fits my body type perfectly may be unusable for large groups of the population. Rather than develop a sizing system for butt stocks (the rear most portion of the rifle that presses against your shoulder) most manufactures have opted to use a “telescoping” stock. Now, with a small adjustment, the rifle is able to be used comfortably by virtually anyone. Let’s look at it this way, imagine there was suddenly a high number of fatalities from drivers not wearing their seat belts, getting into accidents, and slamming into the steering wheel. Now rather than addressing the problem of why people are not wearing their seat belts, or having the accidents in the first place (or why these mass shootings are happening), the government decides to legislate that all new cars are no longer allowed to have seats that adjust back and forth. Think about that for a second, a group of people that know nothing about cars (or guns in our case) make an arbitrary decision that only makes things more uncomfortable for anyone that drives a car, and does nothing to actually prevent the deaths.  If you are too tall or too short to sit comfortably, well it sucks to be you. Doesn’t make much sense does it?

But maybe you think I’m making an unfair assumption by saying these are arbitrary decisions by people that don’t know what they are talking about. I mean after all, it’s the Federal Government, these people are supposed to be well informed on things they make laws about. Well sure, I’ll give you that, I mean who has more information at their disposable than the Federal Government? And it would be a travesty for these lawmakers to make huge, constitutionally questionable decisions without pouring over all the facts and trying to make the most informed choice they can right? Right? Well to answer that question let’s take another look at some of the things that make an “assault weapon”. One of the items that turns a semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle an “assault weapon” is a barrel shroud. Do you have any idea what a barrel shroud is? If not, that’s ok, because neither does this lady. And just who is this lady you might ask? Well that’s Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, representative of  New York’s 4th congressional district, and one of the most outspoken gun-control advocates there is. She is advocating to outlaw something she literally has no clue about. So just what is a barrel shroud? Well it’s certainly not “a shoulder thing that goes up”, it’s a ventilated covering that goes over the barrel of a gun to keep the operator of the firearm from accidentally burning themselves. IT ACTUALLY MAKES THE GUN SAFER!!!!!! Please explain the logic in taking this away? Is it in hopes that the next mass shooter would burn his hand on a hot barrel and be unable to continue the rampage? And why is a bayonet lug (where you attach the bayonet to a gun) even listed? When was the last time you heard of a mass bayoneting? Could it be that these mostly cosmetic changes just make the gun scary looking? Or that the uneducated law makers believe guns that have them are some how more dangerous? Well I guess that’s something you’ll have to decide for yourself. But just to make a point, this rifle, and this rifle fire the same size bullet, are both semi-automatic (only one bullet fires each time you pull the trigger), and would be just as effective to shoot a lot of people with. Can you guess which one would be illegal and which one wouldn’t?

Another key argument in the debate on gun control revolves around the availability of high-capacity magazines for these “assault rifles”. The prevailing argument against them is that, were a shooter to not have so many rounds in each magazine, theoretically they would not be able to kill as many people, and that during a reload there would be a chance to stop them. Rather then allowing someone to posses a twenty or thirty round magazine, if we limited them to five or ten rounds, more lives could potentially be saved. If the killer had only one magazine it would be pretty hard to argue against this, unfortunately in every case the shooter has been armed with multiple magazines. Now if you’ll watch this video, you’ll see just how quickly a magazine can be changed. This isn’t some sort of secret skill taught by the military, literally anyone can attain this sort of speed with practice. To revisit our car analogy, does anyone really NEED a car that goes more than 55? The answer is no, but we all want them, and most drivers are responsible enough to posses such a vehicle. When you get down to the meat of the issue, it doesn’t matter if the magazine hold five or thirty rounds, because rifles just don’t kill that many people to begin with! In fact, between 2006 and 2010 more than twice as many people were beaten to death by their attacker’s bare hands than were killed by rifle fire. Not to mention hammers and baseballs bats kill almost half again as many people as rifles each year, yet no one seems to be calling for a ban on those. Is that possibly because millions of responsible Americans use them for recreation every year without harming anyone? Perhaps if baseball bats came with a bayonet lug we could finally get our law makers to take some action against these Louisville death machines.

However, recreational use isn’t why we must preserve the right to own these weapons, it is for the continued existence of the free state. Something that is left out of most high school government classes is the fact that the Second Amendment is the most important, as it guarantees the freedoms of the other 26. It is the teeth of our freedoms, and effective only if we are similarly armed to those we may oppose. Imagine the world today, and your place in it, if our Founding Fathers had been similarly disarmed prior to the American Revolution. To give up our arms is to slip from citizen to subject, gun control being the first, inevitable step towards people control. As Founding Father Thomas Jefferson eloquently stated,”Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.” So ask yourself, the next time you hear a politician talking about gun control, who you feel like plowing for, yourself, or those you’re ordered to?


~ by halfempty621 on January 9, 2013.

4 Responses to “A Love Letter to the Second Amendment.”

  1. Love this, but if you go back and research news stories from Sandy Hook over the first three days evry indication was that the AR style rifle never left the suspects car. Only after a few days did the media see what an egregous error was made by not putting this weapon firmly in the dead suspects hands. Also I firmly blame the NRA as well as the anti-gun crowd for all this.

    • I’ve actually had someone else bring this to my attention and researched it more thoroughly. I’ve found several credible sources, including the official statement from the police department stating it a shotgun was left in the car and the AR was the primary weapon. If you have any contradictory evidence from a credible source please fwd it to me for review as I strive to be as accurate as possible. Thanks for the feedback, glad you enjoyed the read.

  2. Thank you!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: