"Assault Weapons" and the Founding Fathers

Gun Control Debate

I used to be in favor of legislation to ban assault weapons. I mean, who really needs an “assault weapon”? It should make sense to ban only high powered guns, right?

You may say: “The Founding Fathers could have never imagined assault weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds per minute!”

And this is a valid claim.

When the Founders wrote the 2^nd Amendment, nothing even close to modern assault weapons existed (For clarification, the musket was one of the most advanced guns at the time).

Now, that being said, once I started to look into some of the recent legislation being proposed to Congress and also into our nation’s deep history and roots in the Constitution, I began to re-open my mind to the whole purpose of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is for the basic "right to bear arms". It doesn't layout what we can, or cannot, own.

This Was No Accident!

This right to keep and bear arms wasn't given to us by the State in the Constitution; it was put in to ensure our already existing right to do so. In fact, let’s take a look at what some of our country’s earliest patriots had to say about our right to bear arms:

James Madison – “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.”

Alexander Hamilton –“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

And here is some simple reasoning from the author of the famous “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” speech:

Patrick Henry – “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

Federal Assault Weapons Ban

After a year where so-called “assault weapons” were used in only 0.6% of all gun murders, some politicians have, once again, aimed to infringe on our Second Amendment rights.

Click Here to learn more about assault weapons.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the author of the original Federal Assault Weapons Ban, is leading this charge to ban assault weapons. Let's take a closer look at some of her words:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban [of guns], picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

It's clear that Sen. Feinstein's ultimate goal is to take away more than just our "assault weapons"...

We Must Continue to Defend our Rights!

There is a reason why we have a 2nd Amendment that doesn't specify what kind of "arms" we have the right to bear.

The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant that the government governs only by the consent of the governed.

The Assault Rifle Debate: A Right or a Life?

What Will You Do For Your Country?

I am a gun owner. I own two shotguns given to me by my grandfather, a former skeet shooting champion of California. I believe that citizens have the right to own a weapon to defend themselves against enemies foreign and domestic. But I also believe that as we are forced to address the issue of assault weapons in the wake of recent tragic events, I have a responsibility to sacrifice a portion of my right to own a deadly weapon.

Crisis Check 

We have an issue of gun violence in the United States. Families are being torn, innocent people are dying, and the bright futures of our nation’s next generation are being ripped from the soothing grasp of their mothers. After incidents like Sandy Hook and Aurora, our nation was anxious to make change. As soon as the emotional shock of the situation wore off however, we halted our ambitious desires for change in favor of an unnecessary fixation such as the definition of an assault weapon. 

The Other Side

There are many arguments in favor of keeping society the way it is with respect to our constitutional rights and that small probability of any gun control legislation making any real difference. Besides providing sense of security, gun owners usually use their weapons to engage in some sort of sport or game.  Many feel as if they have a right to own any type of gun for personal protection, and also because they believe the second amendment is self-evident. These opinions must first be acknowledged and addressed, before any progress can be made.

The 1%

I know quite a few responsible gun owners and I trust them. However, I also come from a city where the basketball team had to change its name from the “Bullets” because of the prevalence of gun murder. I am not naïve enough to think that everyone will use his or her protective weapon for security and sport. With reference to the mentally ill criminal responsible for Aurora, some people are just not good. People must understand that even if 99% of Assault rifle owners will use their weapon for considerable means, that one percent is the one that is responsible for the lives of hundreds of innocent people. One might say in response to such a comment that deeper background checks will solve the problem, but the fact of the matter remains that he personally, did not OWN ANY OF THE GUNS! 

It's Only Logical

We need to come out of our comforting shells of naivety, recognize the flaws in our society and try to fix them step-by-step. If there is any possibility that defining and banning assault weapons will save lives then what are we waiting for? Where are our priorities? Many say we have to protect our rights, but do we all fail to remember our social contracts with our country? We promise to give up certain things in exchange for protection and security. Why else would we pay taxes? Why then, can we not sacrifice the right to own a heinous weapon for the security of our children?

Power to the People

I believe that militias, as I have defined them, are necessary for our country.  I believe this for three reasons:

1.     They act as security, as well as the preservation of the rule of law in a vacuum

a.   Prime example of the need for a local arm of law is natural disasters.  After hurricane Katrina there was a power vacuum, where people looted, assaulted others and committed other crimes.  This would be preventable if we had a trained civilian infrastructure (to assist a police force which is not meant to handle something on that large a scale) to maintain the rule of law.

2.   This program would provide military style training to those who would otherwise not have access or who  would not want to enter the huge commitment which is the military, increasing in our general population discipline and competency in a wide range of tasks and skills, as well as physical fitness.  Included in this is firearms training and discipline, helping to lower gun violence through education and training

a.   We could possibly reduce gun violence and crime because we have more readily trained individuals, as well as people being more disciplined and educated about weapons.

3.   Disseminates power back to the people.  Provides a more widespread accumulation of skills and training that previously were unavailable to anyone who didn't enlist.  This not only would improve individuals, but would help the country as a whole improve, as well as returning us to the founding ideal of civilian self-sufficiency.

a.   Not accountable to the federal or state government but rather to the people that they serve

b.   Additionally, this enables more civilian control of military grade weapons such as assault rifles, machine guns and rocket launchers, without allowing them to be used for murder or other malevolent action

These militias would be led by local leadership, such as mayors and city councils.  Their officers would be military or law enforcement veterans, or ordinary people.  But they would need to go to an academy to teach them and evaluate them on their abilities and skills to be able to serve their militia.  They would be privately funded, or by grants from the federal government, and would use mostly private supplies, their status however allowing them to purchase military hardware.

Some will say that this is the same as the National Guard.  There are two fundamental, defining characteristics that differentiate these militias from the National Guard: that they are run locally, not by the federal or state government so they can react immediately to disaster or invasion and that they are not deployed to combat away from their areas of jurisdiction.  They are kind of like half police deputies half National Guard.

The main counter-argument to this can be explained as this: do we want more gun nuts running around toting machine guns?  Will that help with the problem or just result in more death or one power hungry moron asserting martial law?  We respect the police and the Army.  Once established, this program will have the same principles to it that allow us to trust the police and the military: Training, professionalism, honor and duty.  These are the founding principles that make our country great!

The 1%

I trust 99% of gun owners, but I am willing to sacrifice my assault weapon ownership with respect to the possibility that a few people will fail to obey their moral obligations to America 

This is a Problem, Make a Change

Various views on gun control through Piers Morgan interviews.

                               

Note: During an interview, a man says that the "Republic will rise again!" and that we will rise up in rebellion when and if the government takes guns.  I want to say that we do not advocate armed resistance to the government excepting under the circumstances that our fathers acted under and then immortalized in the constitution: when it is no longer a government of the people, by the people, for the people and if it violates or eliminates the constitution of the United States.