Original Meaning Of The Second Amendment To The U.S. Constitution

There continues to be arguments between the pro-gun groups and the anti-gun lobby about the intended purpose and meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The anti-gun lobby argues that the use of the word “militia”, as mentioned in the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States indicates the keeping of arms was meant only to provide for a standing army in times of an invasion by another county. During my college years, I too was indoctrinated into this line of thought.

What I wasn’t told then, and what the anti-gun politicians go out of there way to hide for fear of weakening their stronghold on misconceived public perception, are the real thoughts behind the words of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Before starting this line of thought, keep in mind that the Second Amendment is the only amendment that refers to an object—weapons. Presumably this indicates how important it was to the founders that the ownership of guns was as important as any other right enshrined in the first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps the right to keep and bear arms is more important than most of our other rights if we are to believe the Bill of Rights is prioritized.

Instead of using our own current interpretations of what the framers of the Second Amendment were thinking, a better insight may come from looking at the framers’ actual words. This way we can at least establish the foundation on which to understand the framers’ intent, not our interpretations.

The following are the thoughts of the framers at the time they were arguing for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as they relate to the militia and the keeping private arms (bold type added to emphasize author’s intent):

“The great object is, that every man be armed…Every one who is able may have a gun.”
--Patrick Henry

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
--Tench Coxe, Feb. 20, 1788

“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
--Richard Henry Lee, February, 1788

“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and…might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
--Tench Coxe, remarking on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”
--Samuel Adams

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? 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?”
--Patrick Henry

There have also been numerous attempts to compare the somewhat archaic weapons at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, to the AR-style “assault weapons” of today. Typically the argument against the AR-style sporting rifle is that the founders had no idea about these weapons and surely would not have wanted them included in the class of weapons protected by the Second Amendment.

It’s true that the founders probably never envisioned our country’s weaponry as it currently is today. It’s also true that when they wrote the First Amendment protecting freedom of speech they never envisioned the existence of the internet, e-mails, television, radio, or computers and hard drives to store the written or spoken word.

Under this premise, we could also assume that they never intended speech to ever be disseminated via our current methods. Therefore it could be argued that the people today must be content in keeping their communications to that of the methods at the time—a printing press, and shouting—if they are to be protected under the First Amendment. We can all see how ludicrous this last comparison is, yet is it any more ludicrous to think the founders never had the intention of applying the meaning of the Second Amendment to future evolution of arms?

Those in favor of the evolution of our means of free speech are especially quick to use these evolved forms of speech to disseminate their thoughts on how our Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States should somehow be limited. These same people continue to add their two cents to what types of weapons the founders felt should be protected—or not.

The following statements make clear that the idea of the time was simple; that the citizens always have a greater ability than any standing army to defend themselves or the country.

“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sward; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
--Noah Webster, 1787

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
--Thomas Jefferson

“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…"
--Alexander Hamilton speaking on the topic of standing armies

“…most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved.”
--James Burgh

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally…enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
--Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, 1833

And more recently:

“The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”
--Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October, 1959

At the time the founding fathers put our constitution together, while there were no AR style rifles available, they did allow for weapons that were more powerful than the military’s weapons of the time. Their intent was clear—to be armed well enough that no country could take us over. Our founding fathers  knew full well the tyrannical nature of some governments, and wanted us to be armed as well as any government—even our own.

Based on this mindset it could be argued that they would have even intended that we all have fully automatic weapons to keep up with those of the current militaries from around the world.

Even if guns in the hands of irresponsible criminals result in some illegal casualties, it is a far cry from the genocidal murder committed by some governments in countries with gun bans.

Would the Ugandans in Rwanda have been better able to defend against the government’s mass murder if they were armed? Instead of being able to defend themselves from the new party taking over the government, there was a genocidal mass slaughter in 1994. In approximately 100 days over 500,000—or approximately 20% --of the population was wiped out. Some estimates put the death toll at over 1,000,000.

Speaking as to what it would be like if our Second Amendment rights were ever dissolved, Patrick Henry mused, “O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, where with you could defend yourselves, are gone…”

All of this is critically important to remember if we ever elect a President who has shown via voting records, and his underlying subtly stated messages, that he is willing to dismantle any portion of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It is even more important if, at the same time, he is a President decreasing funding to our U.S. Military, weakening our power over foreign invasion and our likelihood we could be invaded by another country with no means of defending ourselves. And while many politicians lie, if a President ever tells you he want to “fundamentally transform our nation’’—when those very fundamentals are what have made us the greatest nation—it would be wise to do what it takes to preserve our arms, just in case he gets to wave his magic wand, put the unsuspecting public under his spell, and make that change.

It is our strong supply of individual private firearms, not the military, that has deterred many nations from invading our homeland. Let’s not fall victim to the smooth-talking politicians while they methodically disarm our population, then wait to see what happens.

If you enjoy freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, or any other liberties in this country, it is critical that you not only thank those who fight for Second Amendment rights, but to support them yourself. For without the full and unfettered force of the Second Amendment it is a matter of when, not if, your other private rights will be dissolved. As stated so often, it is true that the Second Amendment exists as a protection for all the other amendments.

In the next article we’ll take a look at the origin and the original birthplace of our Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Why More Guns Equal Less Crime; United States Crime Compared To Other Countries

John Lott wrote a book called “More Guns, Less Crime,” and that statement has become a heated debate, especially after the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Those trying to prove that more guns equal more crime love to site statistics comparing two different countries, or irrelevant gun violence information. They love to compare gun murder rates of the U.S. to a country such as England. In these cases they like to point out that England has relatively strict gun control, less guns per capita, and a lower gun murder rate than the U.S. Then these “experts” will site how other countries have fewer guns and fewer murders, therefore they maintain that the phrase “more guns, less crime” strictly doesn’t apply.

The reality is that the comparison of one country to another as it pertains to gun crime is rarely an objective measure of what works on a whole. The real issues being overlooked are the other influences that affect gun crime in each individual country. The only accurate way to make a comparison is to look at the data of one country’s statistics prior to strict gun control and compare how that same country has fared after the strict gun control and limiting laws went into effect.

In the case of those who love to compare England’s gun murder rate to that of the United States, it is true that England has a much lower rate of gun murder. What those who are making that comparison don’t want you to know is that the murder rate in England was even lower before the strict gun laws were in place. They were low before, and yes they are still comparatively low now, but they are still worse. And for those who argue that gun murders in England may have gone up, but now it’s “on it’s way down”, the reality is that it is still higher today than it was prior to strict gun control. So at the very best, strict gun control in that case has had little to no effect on the gun murder rate, and cannot be proven to have had a positive effect.

At the same time the media pundits are pointing out that the United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world (true) they also love to make it appear as if the United States also has the highest rate of murders in the world on a per capita basis (false). They hope to fool you into thinking these comparisons support their claim of more guns actually equaling more crime.

What they are doing, however, is comparing the gun homicide rate of the U.S. with selectively chosen countries with fewer guns and fewer per capita murders in an effort to try to prove their point. They are not using across the board statistics. The truth is that even though the U.S. does have the highest per capita rate of gun ownership, we rank 28^th in the world in per capita gun murders.

And it’s not just murder rates that should be looked at when discussing the ability to possess a firearm to protect one’s self. Violent assaults should hardly be ignored when determining if a country is safer before and after strict gun control and outright gun bans. Unless you get away from what the mainstream media is peddling, you’ll rarely here that England is quite violent compared to the U.S. Britain has been named the most violent country in the European Union, sporting 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The U.S.  has a paltry-by-comparison 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people. This leaves the United States out of the top ten countries in the world in this category, largely due to the citizens’ ability to defend themselves against violent attackers.

The “experts” on gun control like to leave out another important fact: In the United States between 1992 and 2011 gun ownership went up by 300% and 18 more states added concealed carry during that time. Between those same years violent crime in the U.S. was reduced by 49%. Not only did violent crimes decrease as a “per gun ownership” rate, but overall! I would call that more guns, more guns on the street in the hands of law-abiding citizens, and less crime.

As an example of how strict gun control works here in the United States when it is allowed to be implemented, let’s take a look at the murder capital of the U.S. and the city with the most strict gun laws in this country—Chicago. Chicago's top political brass continues to make gun ownership for law-abiding citizens as hard as possible, while they continue to struggle with the most violent crime and murder rates in the U.S. Last year Chicago alone had over 500 of the deaths by gun homicide in the United States.

The point Lott was making in his book is that in an individual country—compared to itself—with reduced gun controls and bans, reduces the violent crime and murder rates in that same country. At the very worst, statistics of a rare country could be argued to have had no effect. There has not been conclusive evidence that more guns ever equals more crime.

Those opposed to the legal carry of concealed weapons love to point out that not one of the mass shootings in the United States in the last 30 years has been stopped by an armed civilian with a concealed carry permit. This statement proves informative as to the mind and arguments of the anti-gun propagandists--like Wisconsin Swiss cheese it's both stinky, and full of holes. This is another flat out lie by those who resort to any means to influence the masses when they find that the real stats don’t support their claims.

It would be more accurate to say, “There hasn’t been a mass shooting where a concealed carry holder has had the legal opportunity to prevent a mass murder.”

Those who quote the first sentiment fail to include the fact that almost every public mass shooting in the past 30 years has happened in a “no gun zone.” The law-abiding citizens who would have had the potential to stop the mass shootings were prohibited by law from doing so. Those who had the means to save lives did as concealed carry holders do—abide by the laws. The current state and federal laws in place have possibly allowed more deaths than could have been prevented had armed citizens been allowed to exercise their right to not be a victim.

Also, by definition, a mass shooting has to involve multiple murders of innocent people. The truth is that we don’t have any idea how many have been prevented by concealed carry holders—since they never occurred in the first place. Often murders are prevented by the mere presence of a firearm without even one shot being fired. One example can be found here. http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

You are also never told by the anti-gun lobby about the fact that law-abiding gun owners across the United States prevent home invasions, rapes and other violent assaults on a daily basis because of their ability to own and use a firearm to defend themselves and their loved ones.

Perhaps the answer to the violence in our country lies in a different place than the smooth-talking anti-gun politicians would like you to believe. Perhaps the solution lies in a firearm in your gun safe, your purse, or preferably, on your hip.

In the next article we’ll set aside both sides’ interpretation of what our Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is, and take a look at the founding Fathers’ intent behind the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.

The Real Solutions To Mass Murders, School Shootings And Gun Violence

Is it time to look outside the box at the real culprit of the gun violence in the U.S? Is there one simple solution that would dramatically reduce violence and gun crime like the mass shooting we just saw at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut?

Or, is it more realistic to admit, hard as it may be, that there may be no one item or issue creating the culture of violence in America?  Is gun violence or violence in general intricately woven into the fabric of our country? Or as H. Rap Brown said back in the 60s, “Violence is as American as apple pie.”

Perhaps we need to closely observe which threads need to be cut from our fabric, and which are required to remain for the long-term existence of this country and her people?

Without a doubt we need to look at all the pieces of the puzzle if we are serious about getting to the bottom of the American culture of gun violence and the causes of the mass school shootings. Perhaps our culture has made a change for the worse in other areas that have slipped our attention in the past few decades, and especially today in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook.

The fabric of our nation is in much worse shape today than it has ever been. Maybe there is some merit to those pointing to violent movies and video games infiltrating the minds of our young. Even the war movies of a few decades ago chose to show death with someone falling, or maybe an arm or hand in the picture going limp. Today if there’s not blood, it’s a dud. And the more the better it seems, at least in terms of movie profits.

Then we’ve got the hypocritical Hollywood movie stars making increasingly more violent movies. Then they spout off about how we should ban the very guns they are glorifying. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOt7Fi49PT0

Is it the music we allow our children to listen to? Is it the general lack of supervision of our children overall? Are we even able to supervise our children properly in our technological age--or do we even care? Perhaps we’re just too afraid to spend enough time with our children to bring them up properly so we’d rather rely on the government to just eliminate all the “dangerous things” in their lives so we no longer have to take responsibility in supervising them.

Today we’re covering our children’s problems by giving them psychological drugs instead of love. The drug industry and the doctors have become the biggest drug pushers in this country—prescribing drugs they know full well increase the tendency for violence and chance of suicide. These statistics are significant. Some of these drugs increase the odds for violence 12 times more—not compared to those who don’t take them—compared to other drugs that have already been shown to increase these tendencies over those who take no drugs!

Many mass murderers and individuals responsible for domestic violence in the family have been known to be on these medications, yet this is never brought up by those who want to keep your focus on the guns. Anti-gunners continue saying the gun lobby is so rich and powerful at the same time they ignore a much more plausible reason for crime—the pharmaceutical companies. This is partly because the pharmaceutical industry is many times more powerful than the gun lobby will ever be.

Is our culture desensitizing the upcoming generations to violent behavior? Have we become too afraid to stand up for what’s right for fear of offending someone who may not agree with us? It seems our ability to do the right thing has become overshadowed by our fear of offending.

Mass murder is tied to the ability, along with the willingness, to resort to this type of violence. That doesn’t come from any one item. In the absence of guns there are plenty other means to do more severe, and more instantaneous, and more catastrophic damage if one so desires. Focusing on bogus solutions without addressing the real problem might just get us another Oklahoma City bombing.

Every time an outrageous shooting occurs, it doesn’t make sense to focus on an inanimate object just to try and take away some people’s only viable means of self defense. Why vilify those who don’t abuse the privilege to have a firearm just because someone else chose to misuse it? If the media treated vehicle deaths with the same urgency as they do gun deaths there would be breaking news every 52 minutes. But they don’t because it’s not about the deaths. It’s about the guns.

More guns for law-abiding citizens?
If lawmakers want to focus on guns as the cause of violence then they have a duty to view the solution as perhaps being the same as what hospitals have gotten correct for a number of years now. It’s what is sometimes referred to poison/anti-poison. You don’t give penicillin to a cancer patient to fight off the cancer. You give a poison that’s stronger than the poison attacking him or her. If you want to assume guns are the problem, then it’s time to look at what the anti-gunners will consider an inconvenient truth—guns may just be the solution.

As Wayne LaPierre so aptly stated, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”

The only viable solution that has been proposed to prevent school shootings is to implement concealed carry on school grounds. At the very least, teachers who take the protection of their children seriously should not be prevented from doing what they can to see to it the kids stay safe.

Of course for those teachers who would like to protect the children, it should be mandatory to keep any weapon concealed. I would even argue that those who choose to carry not even mention it to anyone. This is for the same reason mentioned in a previous article about the placement of armed guards at schools. If a criminal knows who is carrying, that person will become the first target. For true safety, keep it concealed.

I don’t advocate that all teachers be armed. I don’t advocate that all citizens should be armed—even law-abiding, mentally competent individuals. Truth is, some just shouldn’t be armed if they don’t like the idea and aren’t comfortable with it. But, if teachers are really serious about protecting their students, why are politicians getting in the way of giving the teachers a fighting chance to keep the children safe? We’ve already seen the ugly alternative too many times. Maybe it’s time to wake up.

If the government wants to start with a quick, simple, and effective means of minimizing the damage caused by deranged gunmen, start by installing tougher doors and locks on classroom doors just like they do now in the cockpits of airplanes. At least this way when the shooting starts, collateral damage can be minimized. It’s much better than huddling in a corner hoping a psycho won’t target your room when he’s done with the one where he started.

Immediately after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, the President stated, “We need to start in our own hearts and homes.” If taken as a possible starting point, and not as rhetoric to deflect all responsibility away from the real cause—the individual—the President’s original comments are 100% correct.

We need to ask ourselves what we can do as individuals to strengthen our moral society. We need to stop deflecting the true cause of our problems in this county. We need to act, and at the same time act in such a way that preserves our liberties that made us the greatest nation in the world instead of being so afraid to offend others that we pussy-foot around the real solutions.

In the next article we take a look at one of the most controversial, and seemingly most illogical, solutions to the gun crime and mass shootings in the United States—the argument that “more guns equals less crime.”