Sunday, January 13, 2013

The Main Reason for the Second Amendment

I am at the University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee doing some research on a man who called himself John Wilkes Booth and married a woman named Louisa Payne in 1872. My wife, Rachelle, is doing some doctoral work at Vanderbilt University. Saturday, Rachelle and I drove to the Cumberland Plateau and did a little site seeing near the Stone's Gate at Beersheba Springs (picture left). Just over my left shoulder, across the Cumberland Ridge, is a little community called Athens, Tennessee

Most Americans have never heard of Athens, Tennessee, or the Battle of Athens.  The events that took place there in 1946 have bearing on any discussion regarding the revocation of the Second Amendment by Presidential order. It was in Athens, Tennessee in 1946 that a group of World War II veterans led townspeople in an armed revolt against corrupt and brutal politicians. It is very frustrating to talk to people who believe that the Second Amendment is about the freedom to have guns for hunting or personal defense. Our American forefathers included the Second Amendment for the very reason that the WW II veterans took up arms in Athens in 1946. The film below, a television documentary about The Battle of Athens, is fifteen minutes long, but it is worth your time to watch. Pay close attention to the actual photos at the end of the film and the plaques commemorating the actions of the veterans. I don't think there is a better or more accurate example for why the Second Amendment will always be needed in America. It is important that Americans base their views on gun control on the principles of freedom and not the emotions of fear.



John Wylie said...

Thanks Wade for the honest post. I know it takes a lot courage because a certain segment of society will accuse you of being crazy when you write about things like this. You are a true historian and I appreciate.

Wade Burleson said...


Thanks. I disdain politics and would consider myself a true libertarian.

I also think in terms of principles, and the fact that people are unable to see the principle behind the second amendment is baffling to me.

John Wylie said...

To some people, in the above segment I referenced, the idea of having to protect one's rights from an over reaching government is unfathomable. It's not that they do not see the principle behind the amendment, it's that they reject it.

Wade Burleson said...

Good point, John.

I recently wrote a post on Natural Law and the principle that government is "of the people, by the people and for the people." We the people ARE the government.

Natural Law is the reason in old westerns you will see posters that say, "WANTED: DEAD or ALIVE." The idea is if a man puts himself outside of Natural Law and encroaches on people by killing or maiming them, or continually encroaching on property by forcibly taking things that are not theirs, then it is the right of the people to bring the OUTLAW to justice -- DEAD or ALIVE.

I agree with you that some people believe that we have become TOO civilized for people to have guns.

Truth is, THE reason the West has BEEN civilized is BECAUSE people have guns. Once you take guns away, then THE GOVERNMENT becomes something SEPARATE from the people, and throughout history, governments that take arms from its people become despotic, tyrranical and fascist (Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc....).


I would encourage those who believe taking arms from people is CIVILIZED to realize that they are actually promoting a BARBARIC principle that will not be fully realized until it is too late.

Again, this is not a liberal, conservative issue. It is a principle of freedom vs. tyranny.

Garen Martens said...

Wow! That's a powerful story!

Steven Stark said...

Hi Wade!

I have three quick questions (if you have time)

1. Do you think the ban on fully-automatic weapons and RPG's is a violation of the 2nd amendment?

2. Do you think Lincoln was wrong to use federal power take down the Southern militias and stop the South from seceding? This was pure tyranny from their point of view.

3. Do you think one can argue for stricter gun control (than what we have now) but still support the 2nd amendment?

Thanks! Steven

David Rogers said...


Good questions. I'd like to see the answers to those questions too.

David Rogers said...

The first few comments in the comment stream of this article are interesting and enlightening.

Wade Burleson said...

Steven and David,

I will be unable to respond to any follow up questions because I without Internet connection except late at night when Rachelle and I arrive back at the hotel. However, I stopped in to get a few things and wanted to respond quickly. I apologize for not being able to answer with more precision, but here are my quick responses to your excellent questions:

(1). Do you think the ban on fully-automatic weapons and RPG's is a violation of the 2nd amendment?

Yes. License, train, qualify and track, but to ban is a violation of the Second Amendment. Guns and RPG's don't kill people. People kill people. Over 3,000 people were killed with airplanes. Should government ban airplanes? No. Government should license, train, qualify and track pilots - which they do.

By the way. There is a citizen in North Carolina who has the largest private collection of fully automatic machine guns in the western hemisphere. He carries a special ATF license and has a tremendous amount of security around his very valuable (and illegal for those not licensed) guns. His name is Franklin Graham. Yes. That Franklin Graham. How do I know? He told me.

I am not scared of Franklin Graham and neither should you be. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

(2). Do you think Lincoln was wrong to use federal power take down the Southern militias and stop the South from seceding?

No. For ONE reason. The south was encroaching on human beings freedoms--black Americans to be precise. The south's violation of Natural Law (slavery) is just cause for a just war.

The man I really admire is John Brown of Kansas. John Brown took matters into his own hands and sought to free guns from the Harper's Ferry armory in West Virginia to arm slaves to revolt against their slave owners. John Brown was executed by the government for his actions, but this Christian man understood the concept of Natural Law and FOUGHT the south on the principle of abolishing slavery, even though HE was a southerner.

Slavery was the wrong during the Civil War. Lincoln would EVENTUALLY acknowledge the just cause of the war (slavery), though in the beginning he was trepiditious in announcing his views that owning, selling, and buying HUMAN BEINGS was a violation of Natural Law. He always believed it, but only after the war did he articulate it. His views were shaped by an early sighting of a slave auction in New Orleans, and his comments on the godless sell of human beings like property is keen insight into Natural Law.

(3). Do you think one can argue for stricter gun control (than what we have now) but still support the 2nd amendment?

Absolutely. As I said. License, train, and track. What you will find is the problem with guns is not the law-abiding citizens who own them. The problem with guns is the criminal. Punish the criminal. Don't worry about the citizen.

Again, will be unable to respond. Thanks for the comments!

Steven Stark said...

Hi Wade!

Thanks for the detailed response.

1. What about private fighter jets or warships? Or perhaps chemical or nuclear weapons? It’s quite possible that access to that kind of weaponry would be the only way to truly overthrow a modern government by force. Should private citizens be allowed to own warheads? If guns don't kill people, then nuclear warheads don’t kill people either.

The airplane is not analagous to the gun. An airplane’s ontological purpose is to facilitate travel. Terrible accidents happen which kill people. This is a twist of the plane’s original purpose.

A handgun’s ontological purpose is to kill people. And a military-style assault weapon’s purpose is to kill many people efficiently. When people are killed, the guns’ purpose has not been twisted, rather it has been fulfilled. The protection or “entertainment” a gun can possibly offer is a secondary purpose which descends from its primary purpose.

Another way to think of it - engineers and designers are working everyday to make planes safer. Engineers and designers are working everyday to make guns more deadly.

2. We agree here, though it’s certainly not cut and dry to me (this is a bit of an aside). Obviously we agree that slavery is a heinous crime, but the Civil War was truly terrible. What would have happened if Lincoln had honored the individual states’ wishes to secede instead of stopping it with large-scale federal power? Would 600,000 people have died (not to mention a million casualties)? Would covert operations been effective in leading to the end of slavery? Would the economy of the South crumbled with embargoes from the North? Would another country have invaded the US? It’s hard to know.

And of course to the South, they had natural law and the authority of Scripture on their side concerning slavery. We may disagree, but that’s how they saw it.

Still, I mostly agree with you (I think). But my larger point is that the arguments between groups are about what natural law IS. Very seldom will you find a group that is purposefully doing what they completely know is wrong, at least on a conscious level. So I prefer discussing “right and wrong” to natural law. It seems more clear.

And to me, and many others, it is wrong to allow the careless proliferation of weapons of mass destruction throughout society. Every year 300-400 children under 15 are shot and killed. Four or five times that number are shot and injured. In 2008, 802 children 14-and-under were shot accidentally, and 1,050 were shot on purpose.

The numbers for those 15-19 are staggeringly higher, but people often throw that aside saying that they are all "gang members". I am sure many are. But they are still teenagers. If you include all children and teenagers, in 2008 and 2009 combined 5,740 were killed by guns and 34,387 were injured by guns.

Great Britain has around 50 gun deaths a year. Japan has around 10. Our children are paying the price. That does not make me feel more free. Rather, I feel bound, trapped in a situation where our society does not care for the safety of my (and all) children as much as it should. Trapped in a situation where the right to life is more likely to be taken from our citizens.

3. The problem is that the criminal was not a criminal until after the shootings. The “bad guy with a gun” was often a “good guy with a gun” when he got the gun.

But I still favor the 2nd amendment. And I believe that most of the solution is instituting a strict eduction/licensing requirement to be repeated regularly in order to own a gun. Perhaps we agree there? But I also think that banning military-style weaponry is appropriate. Few owners of these are in “well regulated militias” anyway. The term “well-regulated” has the connotation of some sort of governing body. But I favor the private ownership of “arms”. Just not any arms that anyone wants. I feel that works perfectly fine within the context of the 2nd amendment.

Thanks, David and Wade!!

Ramesh said...

I find it ironic that religious conservatives are more afraid of wine (Jesus drank wine), but are eager to build up huge collections of guns and ammunition. Something is not right here. Also, how does one fight against a government that monitors your every waking moment and has ALL the control and power needed to put down anyone around the world. Common sense is missing here. So are the loss of Civil Liberties in their mad rush to vanquish al-queda and the suppression of muslims.

Wade Burleson said...

Thy Peace,

I think you will find that protection of the Second Amendment doesn't quite as easily divide between liberals and conservative. It is a Libertarian issue that is not as easily labeled as others issues.

Wade Burleson said...


You write: (1). "What about private fighter jets or warships? Or perhaps chemical or nuclear weapons? It’s quite possible that access to that kind of weaponry would be the only way to truly overthrow a modern government by force."

A non sequitur Steven. The Taliban in Afghanistan didn't have these weapons. IF the United States government dared use chemical weapons or nuclear weapons ON AMERICANS, you and I better pray that American citizens have guns to overthrow the dictator who is in the White House.

There is a great deal of difference between ships and nuclear weapons and guns. Nobody has a problem with laws regulating those kind of weapons among private citizens. It's a little difficult, however, to park a ship in your closet.

You write: (2). "There are arguments between groups are about what natural law IS. Very seldom will you find a group that is purposefully doing what they completely know is wrong, at least on a conscious level. So I prefer discussing “right and wrong” to natural law."

"Right and wrong" IS what Natural Law is. Call it whatever you wish. Here is the best definition of right and wrong (17 words).


All religions--Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, atheism, humanism, and the rest--agree with the above statement. The first portion ("do what you have agreed to do") is the basis of contract law. the second portion ("do not encroach on other persons or their property") is the basis of tort law and/or criminal law.

When politicans begin impinging on freedom by MAKING POLITICAL LAWS that far exceed "right and wrong" -and enforce a political agenda, you become a nation losing freedom. Libertarians believe that YOU SHOULD LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE unless THEY VIOLATE NATURAL LAW - then you punish them, swiftly and severely. By the way, Natural Law teaches that you can't FORCE any religion on anybody. This is why Islam is so evil. It is contrary to Natural Law. (Islam means "Submission" - willingly or by the sword).

You write: 3). "The problem is that the criminal was not a criminal until after the shootings. The “bad guy with a gun” was often a “good guy with a gun” when he got the gun."

That's why you PUNISH the criminal quickly and severely. It teaches other good guys not to cross over to the other side. And, it is why you restrict access to guns to those who are adjudicated mentally unstable and felons. We are good at tracking the latter, poor at tracking the former.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. Out all day and will be unable to respond.

Ramesh said...

Some background on death rates across some countries ...

Naked Capitalism > Wolf Richter: How Americans Stack Up In Dying From Violence, War, Suicide, And Accidents

stevenstarkmusic said...

1. I don't think it is a non-sequitur at all.

You write, "There is a great deal of difference between ships and nuclear weapons and guns. Nobody has a problem with laws regulating those kind of weapons among private citizens."

I ask you what the essential difference is? My point is that we are discussing what a proper balance is and that every person believes in some level of weapons control. There is not necessarily some deep difference of principle here. This is not necessarily a question of "tyranny vs. freedom".

I may lump military style assault weapons in with other military items, like tanks. You might lump them in with shotguns or handguns. We should debate that. But once again, we can both believe in the 2nd amendment and in freedom.

2. I agree that we all mostly agree on what right and wrong is. But we definitely disagree on the right way to apply it. That's the main point here.

However I do not think that property rights are necessarily a part of natural law. Unless you mean more broadly "I have the right to punch until it interferes with someone else's nose". I suppose a person's nose is his/her property!

Every single question is about a balance of freedom. One person's "freedom to" has to be balanced by another's "freedom from".

3. Shooters like Lanza often kill themselves. They have no fear of punishment. These types of crimes are endgame crimes. There is no further objective. My brother's DARE officer in Enid killed himself and his family years ago. He was seeking "punishment", not worrying about avoiding it.

With the mentally unstable, it's the same. They are often not labeled that way until after. Our suicide numbers are incredibly high. These are mostly people who have moments of mental instability, and easy access to a weapons enables the bad decision. Every person is capable of some level of mental instability.

Arguments which escalate into gunfire are often presented as self-defence cases. Children are shot by the hundreds each year by accident. Guns are used to intimidate intimates in the home even more often than they are used to shoot - according to the oft-cited Harvard study on gun use.

Perhaps we agree that we need a much stricter system of licensing and continuing education for gun owners to try to change our careless culture about guns. I think that might go a long way.

Rex Ray said...

John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement:

"This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

Jefferson wrote:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

In regard to a new gun law shaping up, how could citizens protect themselves if they only had rifles and the government had machine guns?

Also that possible new law prevents certain video games. HUH?

Once, my sister got on a tear to remove all toy guns from her 5 year old. She even removed sticks he used but finally gave up when he chewed a gun from a cracker.

You may wonder how her son turned out. In his 55 years, he’s never owned a real gun.

Kristen said...

I just wanted to say about this whole thing of "guns don't kill people; people kill people":

Yes, but when a person decides to kill people, and that person has an assault weapon with a huge magazine, a lot of people are going to die. A lot more people than if said person (who has decided to kill people) had a simple handgun, or a shotgun, or a knife. Or a hammer, which is kind of a ludicrous comparison. Sure a person can kill another person with a hammer. Probably just one person. All the other people can see the guy with the hammer and run, and not be gunned down from a distance.

Bombs kill people too. In fact, it seems the biggest-ever school killing was done in 1927 with explosives.

This does make me wonder what kind of a national climate we would have if people were organizing for the right to keep and carry bombs. Bombs, certainly, would be even more effective against a tyrannical government than assault rifles are.

Yet apparently there is a line to be drawn somewhere. People don't want to live in a nation where personal safety is compromised by the right to keep and carry bombs. Bombs are illegal.

This is indeed a matter of degree-- of balancing public safety against personal freedom. I say assault rifles should be on the other side of that line. And this IS different from saying I don't think people should have any gun rights.

Kristen said...

PS. to Rex Ray-- I hope you are being facetious. I know countless people, male and female, who have never owned a real gun but managed to turn out normal anyway-- surprise, surprise! I happen to be one of them. . .

Robert I Masters said...

Steven Stark,
You do realize that private citizens do have air forces(weapons) of their own right.
The purpose of the MIG-29 was as a killing machine.
Interesting read here.

Rex Ray said...

I looked up “FACETIOUS” …”An attempt at being funny while being sarcastic at the same time.”

Sorry if you read that into my comment. I was trying to show that kids ‘crazy’ about guns or video games are NOT necessarily going to grow up to be killers, but like you said…”Normal.”
BTW the kid I referred to is partners in producing the many books of “Hank The Cow Dog”.

I disagree with Page Patterson when he told a gun club, “The greatest need in America was for every boy to have a dad, a dog, and a gun.”

The greatest need is for everyone to do right, and I believe nothing can accomplish that better than being a Christian, but like Obama said, “America is not a Christian Nation.

The movie didn’t show cars upside down, but pictures did. My son’s mother-in-law saw a rich looking woman franticly trying to remove a political bumper sticker from her new car as the ‘mob’ closed in.

Kristen said...

Rex-- Yes, I misunderstood you. So sorry.

Bob Kerr said...

I have pastored in Athens, TN for 27 years, and many of those WWII veterans who fought the Battle of Athens were still around when I came, some in my church. It would be difficult to persuade the people here that the Second Amendment is not necessary to maintaining freedom. Great post!

Rex Ray said...

I believe it was despicable the way Obama pushed his gun control agenda by playing on the emotions of ‘save the little children etc.’

It’s a wonder he didn’t copy Barney Fife with an empty gun and one bullet in the pocket.

BTW, have you noticed Social Security checks are now “Federal Benefit Payment”?

How can the government give our money back and act like it's a handout?

The real name should be “Earned Retirement Income”,

Wade Burleson said...

Bob Kerr,

Next time I'm near Athens, I'd like to give you a call.

Ramesh said...

EFF > What the FBI Doesn't Want You To Know About Its "Secret" Surveillance Techniques

Ron said...

This is one of those issues that you have to be careful not to side with either extreme. If you believe that elementary students should not be allowed to carry loaded AK-47s to school, then you are in favor of gun control. Every reasonable person believes in gun control to some extent. That question is to what extent.

I don’t know anyone who is in favor of taking every gun away from every civilian. This is not going to happen despite what you hear from the paranoid.

The greatest enemy to our freedom is those who abuse that freedom. The constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. We restrict those freedoms because some have used those freedoms to harm others. The restrictions seldom harm those who want to use those freedoms responsibly.

I am not afraid of Franklin Graham but I wonder why he feels the need to have the largest private collection of fully automatic machine guns in the western hemisphere. Does he fear his compound is going to be attacked in such a way that only automatic machine guns can defend him and the local law enforcement would not be available? If so, who does he fear this attack is coming from. He must have a fortune invested in these guns. I can’t imagine Billy Graham having this type of stockpile. Especially if Ruth were still alive.

Anonymous said...

Certain rules which apply to drivers of motor vehicles, should also apply to gun ownership. The applicant for a licence completes a detailed form, containing all relevant questions. Thereafter he/she undergoes an appropriate training course to become skilled in the use of a particular sized fire-arm, just as with motor vehicle. The applicant is then thoroughly tested for skill, competence and knowledge of the law.On passing the test , a license is granted to operate only within the limited category of his licence. Any gun purchased or acquired should have several serial numbers, and be barrel tested for it's DNA. Before the gun is registered to the new licensed owner, he has to show proof that he is able to securely store the gun in a safe at home. When it comes to disposing of the gun, he should complete the necessary transfer forms, as we now do when selling a motor vehicle. This will help the authorities to keep track of the gun. Abolition of hand guns will do more harm in the long run than firm control, which recognises the responsibility of having a gun. Violent crime in the UK has shot up since the abolition of guns. I fully support efforts to train, test, and licence the gun user, as well as action to register, securely store and track the gun.


John Wylie said...

I'm sorry Gordon but there is one major weakness to your argument, and that is that car operation is not a right afforded by an amendment to the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

From the research (limited) that I've done it appears the act of driving on public roads with a vehicle was a constitutional right and not a privilege to be licensed by the state. Various supreme court decisions made this clear (concluded that motorized locomotion on public highways was a right just like walking/horse back riding/carriage was), but it wasn't until around 1930 that New York imposed a mandatory license on folks who wanted to drive with a motorized vehicle. Ken

stevenstarkmusic said...

Good points, Ron and Gordon. And we should remember a very important phrase in the 2nd amendment - "well regulated."

John Wylie said...

How well regulated was the citizen militia when the 2nd amendment was written? Nothing like what is being advocated here. The militia was not even compelled to follow the orders of the President or cross state lines unless they decided voluntarily to do so. Well regulated did not mean regulated by law, what they meant was that they were well regulated by training and drilling. A total misunderstanding of word useage here.

And Ken driving is not a Constitutional right, where is it enumerated in the constitution? It's a priviledge, you must pass a test and pay a fee in order to be licensed in order to enact that priviledge.

stevenstarkmusic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
stevenstarkmusic said...


Either way, we can see that most people bearing arms today do not participate in "well-regulated militias". Your average gun owner does not march in formation regularly.

We have interpreted the 2nd amendment to include general private ownership of arms. Therefore the term "well regulated" seems appropriate to interpret in terms of private ownership as well.

I, like virtually all others, believe we should strive to balance what types of arms satisfy the right to bear arms while also maintaining the freedom of a safe society.

In other words, I have no problem with a ban on RPG's, most explosives, and other types of weaponry as well.

John Wylie said...


Respectfully sir the "well regulated" part of the amendment was not a mandate but an observation. It was saying because we need a well regulated militia for the security of our nation, the right of the people to keep (not in an armory, but in their homes) and bear (to carry) arms shall not be infringed.

At the time that the 2nd amendment was written the Kenntucky rifle, that most American families had, was the most sophisticated military rifle of it's day. No license was required, no regulations pertaining to how much ammunition a person could possess.

John Wylie said...

In other words, at the time that the 2nd amendment was written a person was not even required to regularly drill with a militia in order to possess a firearm. So if we go back to the original intent of the 2nd amendment, at that time there were no regulations whatsoever concerning gun ownership or even carrying one on your person concealed or otherwise.

John Wylie said...

Ken I should have done a better job of reading your comment before I responded. I get your point.

Neil Cameron (One Salient Oversight) said...

As a Christian who lives in another country I have always felt that the link between Christianity and the pro-gun argument to be problematic - but only insofar as Christians are allowed to have an opinion on the matter. As soon as a Christian begins to argue that gun ownership is supported Biblically then I begin to have problems.

But here's the problem - as a Christian I would like to live in a world with less violence and killing. Yet all the statistics prove beyond any doubt, reasonable or unreasonable, that the United States of America is an exceptionally violent nation when compared to other rich nations. Despite the fact that the US has more born again believers per head of population, the amount of gun crime the US experiences is starkly different to other countries.

So what is it that differentiates these other countries from the US and its violence, apart from America's religious heritage? The answer lies in the amount of guns owned per capita. America has a huge amount of guns per head of population when compared to other rich nations.

The link between gun crime (and the associated homicide rate) and the amount of guns available has been proven time and time again. In short, the more guns a country has accessible to its people, the more likely it is for people to kill people.

It's not as though these countries have banned firearms - they just have much tighter restrictions. And that's what I'm arguing for - tighter restrictions, not outright banning.

More of my arguments on gun ownership can be found here and a solution to America's gun problems can be found here

stevenstarkmusic said...

John Wylie,

So you are suggesting that the "right of the people to bear arms" was so that they could organize "well-regulated" militias if they felt they needed to at some point?

It does seem to me that the terms "well-regulated militias" and "the right to bear arms" are very connected in the amendment. The former seems the very reason for the latter.

But I am no legal expert on the history of 2nd amendment interpretations, so I defer! I am much more interested in the moral arguments rather than the legal arguments - although the legal arguments are obviously very important.

But since the founding fathers only had single shot rifles in mind, it does make one wonder what they would think about the proliferation of modern weapons today - especially in light of the disturbing facts concerning shootings and children in the United States.

Other industrialized nations do not have hundreds of children under 14 killed each year by guns (we have around 300-400 each year). Of the non-fatal child shootings in 2008 alone, 802 children 14-and-under were shot accidentally, and 1,050 were shot on purpose.

This is tyranny of a different sort. One that is with us right now.

In general, I agree with Wade that we should license and track weapons. Licenses should be renewed often involving education about gun safety and updated background checks. And I have zero problem banning certain military-style weaponry that makes it easier for disturbed individuals to do so much damage so quickly.

Gary the Gun Nut said...

My dear fellow Gun Nutters™: I say this whole debate y’all having ‘bout what type arms ‘r allowed under the 2nd amendment is so, well, 18th century that it jus’ boggles my mind. What I mean by this is, jus’ stop and think ‘bout it fer a goshdarn minute. When the 2nd amendment was written by that Madison dude, the People™ had the same type arms ’vailable to them that the guvmint had. Ya know, yer basic flintlock muskets and smooth bore cannon, not to mention yer various hatchets, knives, daggers, swords, and the like. Plus everyone was either on foot or mounted (by that, I mean they were riding a horse, not the kind a ‘mounted’ some dirty minded libtards out there might be a thinkin’ ‘bout right now…yeesh!) Anyways, like I was saying, when it came ta arms back then the guvmint and the People™ were on a more or less even footing, which is why that Hamilton dude almost got his a** whipped by those Whiskey Tax™ rebel guys! (Only problem was, the rebs was a samplin’ too mucha their own product fer their own good and so kinda lost the fightin’ edge right when they needed it most, and as a result had ta take ta the hills. In fact, I think summa their offspring is still a livin’ up there ta this very day.) My whole point here is this; nowadays the teeranical fedral guvmint has the most awesomest firepower and ‘vanced weaponry ever seen on the face of the planet, whilst the People™ can’t own no better than some puny assault rifles that’s not even s’posed to be automatic. And now the friggin’ scaredycat libtards want to limit the size of the ammo clips we can own ta like five bullets per clip! (I mean, what’s the point a even having an automatic…er…I mean semiautomatic rifle in the first place if’n you can’t spray effin’ bullets all over the friggin’ place without having ta constantly reload?) So my fellow Gun Nutters™, in order ta put the People™ on a more even footing with the teeranical fedral guvmint (and possibly some state, county, and city guvmints as well), I say we must demand our 2nd ‘mendment rights not be ‘fringed upon in any way, shape, or form, and that we have full access ta whatever type arms the teeranical fedral guvmint has, including (but not necessarily limited to): all manner of handheld weaponry (including not only military grade assault rifles, but also bazookas, RPGs, hand grenades, etc.), heavy machine guns, tanks, armored personnel carriers, aircraft of all sorts (including armed helicopters and drones), missiles including surface-to-air missiles (don’t forget ‘bout the drones), warships, and yes, even bio, chemical, and tactical nuclear weapons. (But we don’t need no stregic nuclar weapons, as we don’t ‘tend go ta war with no whole friggin’ world out there, least not right now, only our own teeranical fedral guvmint.) And so I say ta all my fellow Gun Nutters™, if’n we don’t ‘nsist our 2nd ‘mendment rights not be ‘fringed upon by the teeranical fedral guvmint then we will have started down that dreaded Slippery Slope™ (y’all know, the one our good friends at the NRA hath always done warned us ‘bout) and y’all should get ready fer a very, very bumpy ride. Anyways, those’n ‘r my thoughts for the day. Cheers!

Anonymous said...

I once had a person begin a gun-rights argument with, "If the US Constitution is a living, breathing document"- and I stopped her right there.

I think this is the fundamental difference.

Some people believe that IDEALS change over time. Some people believe the Bible is outdated and locked to a cultural period: unbinding today because it doesn't understand our culture.
Some people believe that the Constitution is outdated and locked to a cultural period: unbinding today because it doesn't understand our culture.

What has changed? The ideal was simple... "We just got out of a tyrannical government with alot of bloodshed. We don't want another tyranny. People should be well armed to prevent another Revolutionary War (1st), and ensure the victory of the people if it happens (2nd)".

That idea hasn't changed. RPGs don't change that.

I have always put it this way... Individual liberty, until the point it infringes on someone else's liberty. You can't kill someone, that infringes on their right to life.
I think something like nuclear weapon falls under this as well. I don't disagree with ownership of one on it's own merit, however a lunatic or simple moron slipping up and causing a small nuclear event would most likely infringe on someone else's right to safety.

Responsible gun ownership (not shooting in the direction of a house, etc) is not a threat to anyone's public safety. It is not a threat to anyone's rights.
What is a threat to life is disarming a populace. Men are larger than women, often that is a woman's best hope in defensive situations in a home. You infringe on her right to safety by taking her means of defense away.

I think the problem, more than anything, is this flawed idea that "ideals change".
We have allowed the media to perpetuate this. A recent survey found 60% of young people have plans to purchase a gun. 60%. The young, naive, ignorant... this is supposedly the group that wants to outlaw guns, right? Not so. 60% plan to purchase.
I think most people have a basic understanding of the second amendment. The media perpetuating this "ideals change" is the issue.

I know ignorant people on both sides of this issue. I know some ignorant rednecks that are very pro-second-amendment, but can't explain their position at all.
I mostly know, however, quite a few ignorant liberals who are against gun control and usually can't explain to you "What happened in the Revolutionary War?"
The well-educated that still want a gun ban usually advocate from an emotional stance.

Anonymous said...

I find myself asking this question... "If they ban assault rifles, or mandate a registration/taxation, would I hide them or give them up?"

I find myself not knowing what I'd do. A few observations, however...
1) I don't think you can get a gun law through this Congress.
2) As a Christian, I believe we should follow our leadership, and I don't think gun-ownership is an item that Biblically over-rides what our government does.
3) If such a law were passed, we may see a sunset date. I won't be giving up my investment in my assault rifle simply to re-purchase it all in several years. I can bury it and dig it up later :) This conflicts with #2.

Increasingly, however, I am contented with not owning gun if such a "gun-grab" were performed. I would still wholly disagree with it, however. I believe that the Biblical commands to submit to our government have precedence here.

On the flip-side of that, I believe it would be over-turned by the Supreme Court. I do not want to give up my $1,000's in guns to re-purchase it again when it becomes legal again.

I do not think any politician is stupid enough to pass a gun-grab bill. However, what does scare me is a few issues.
1) Capacity limitations. You can carry one 30 round mag, or three 10 round mags into that Kindergarten in CT. Those kids weren't going to stop this shooter. That's a reality that people don't want to admit: people would have died regardless of the laws. (His mother acquired them legally, BTW, and would have even with the new laws).
2) Mental Health. Accidentally slip up and tell your doctor, jokingly, "Some days I just want to kill my boss".... Good-bye gun ownership.
3) Registration. This protects no-one, and is a waste of both my time and money in a system that is already horribly inefficient.

Anonymous said...

"2) As a Christian, I believe we should follow our leadership, and I don't think gun-ownership is an item that Biblically over-rides what our government does."

Anonymous - a question from someone who doesn't exactly know the answer - my dilemma is who or what do I listen to when it comes to submitting to the gov't?

Do I submit to the current administration's twisted interpretation of the constitution even if that interpretation is in direct violation of it, or do I have civil disobedience (towards the current administration)and submit myself to what I believe the founding fathers intended?

How does my allegiance to Christ and His Gospel fit in this scenario? That seems to be the rub. Ken

Anonymous said...

"Do I submit to the current administration's twisted interpretation of the constitution even if that interpretation is in direct violation of it, or do I have civil disobedience (towards the current administration)and submit myself to what I believe the founding fathers intended?"

Submit to the point it contradicts the Bible (the issues such as humanity starting at birth, etc). A failed line of reasoning (guns) is not an excuse not to follow a particular law, on that reason alone.
Our allegiance is not to the founding fathers. It really doesn't matter if they were ANTI-GUN, our allegiance is to God. I just struggle to find any Biblical backing that allows us guns.

John Wylie said...

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment