Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Second Amendment Defends Freedom; Not Hunting Rights

Amendment II: 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.
In light of recent events ranging from the tragedy in Connecticut to the utter nonsensical appointment of Joe Biden to head the President’s gun task force, I’ve been analyzing my views on gun ownership and gun rights in this country.
Initially after the Sandy Hook murders, I listened to arguments against assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Certainly, it seems logical that no hunter needs a Bushmaster .223 caliber rifle with clips holding up to 30 bullets to shoot a deer.
But then, I re-read the Second Amendment above; over and over again. Specifically, the line “being necessary to the security of a free State” rang in my ears. I imagined our Founding Fathers debating this amendment and specifically the wording. Under no circumstance were they debating the right to hunt or the right to leisurely recreation at a shooting range.
Then, I made the connection: the Bushmaster used in Sandy Hook Elementary school is the civilian version of the military M-16, the primary rifle of choice for armed Servicemen. The Founders had seen oppression at the hands of a better-armed tyranny. The Founders were students of history and understood that the only way to preserve a “free State” was to even the playing field.
Now, Liberals and Pacifists will argue that the threat of a military takeover of our liberty and freedom is a far-fetched radical right wing extremist notion – and it very well may be.
However, look around our world in 2013. There still exists in all corners of the globe, tyranny and evil and the slaughter of innocent civilians at the hand of better-armed governments.
Our Founding Fathers thought this Amendment – this element of Freedom and Liberty – so important that it is the SECOND Amendment; second only to the preservation of free speech, press and religion.
Lastly, remember the Third Amendment, which expressly prohibits the government from using private homes as quarters for soldiers during peacetime without the consent of the owners. Again, if you think this is not possible look around the Middle East. Regarding this particular Amendment (again 3rd for a reason) Patrick Henry had rhetorically (and facetiously) asked, shall we be stronger, "when we are totally disarmed, and when a British Guard shall be stationed in every house?"
That is a frightening notion. Albeit a stretch, but certainly this oppression of which Henry was speaking against can be said to be akin to some American Liberal Politicians views in 2013.
So, my friends, when Liberals use the hunting argument when debating gun ownership, remind them what it would be like to live under a radical dictatorship with no means of self-defense. Not self-defense against a neighbor or intruder; but defense of our liberty against the forces of oppression.

Stumble Upon Toolbar submit to reddit