2A Discussion

Thought some might be interested in reading this.

A friend sent me the following e-mail a few weeks back.

Here’s his e-mail:

“First, I believe in the right to bear arms, I own guns, and in no
situation *ever* do I think they should be taken away on the whole.

However, I've been dying to have a serious conversation about the
second amendment, I just saw your photo add on facebook, so you got my
interest. I hope you don't mind talking about this. I'd never open it
up on FB as there's too much posting without thinking on there already
about topics like this.

So here it is, what are your thoughts around the second amendment
given that, when it was written, as in your photo, "arms" equated to
black powder rifles and non-repeating pistols?

I think about women's right to vote, slaves treated as property, etc.
that were also written at that same time and wonder why it's not
reasonable or possible to similarly adjust the initial thinking of the
founding fathers along those lines. As I said, I DO NOT think that
means taking them away entirely, but something in the middle from
where we stand right now.

My thing is to think about what it would have taken to do what was
done in Sandy Hook at the time that the second amendment was written
and compare it to what actually happened. I don't know how many shots
were actually fired overall, but essentially, he would have had to be
carrying one gun per shot (a wagonload I'd bet) or sit and reload for
each and every one.

Doesn't that pretty well sum up that we're in a place that the
founding fathers couldn't have possibly forseen and that we need to
adjust accordingly?

I don't buy into the "slippery slope" of how any further form of
regulation means that they'll all be taken away eventually, I suppose
that if that's someone's belief then that would explain it. But I
think that prohibition being reversed, the continued, but regulated
sale of alcohol, even the possible legalization of marijuana, etc.
show that our government is capable of regulation without elimination.

Only asking in the interest of an honest conversation, again, like I
said, no one's taking my guns away but I do feel like something's got
to change.”

…and my response to that e-mail:

My Take On The Second Amendment

"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." ~The Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights

The Intent of the Founding Fathers

The 2nd Amendment was written exactly how it was written on purpose and absent of any real specifics to particular firearm capabilities for a reason.  Hunting, sure, it's covered.  Personal protection in the event of a break in of your home, sure, that's covered too.  But for an individual citizen to be able to posses a firearm of similar caliber and capability as that of the U.S. Military, capable of rapid fire and a high level of accuracy… surely that's not what they intended?  Was that their intent?  That was absolutely their intent.  I'll prove it.

First, I site Judge Andrew Napolitano in a recent piece about the check and balance built directly into the 2nd amendment.  It's a very good read and I highly recommend it.  In it, Napolitano pointedly states that, "It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us."

Next, let's look at the (long) firearms available in December of 1791.  The most commonly available included the shotgun, rifle, and the musket.  The shotgun has a smooth bore, firing shot consisting of small pellets suitable for small game hunting such as bird and rabbit.  The rifle, commonly referred to as the Kentucky Long Rifle, fired a single projectile through a rifled, long barrel and its accuracy made it suitable for large game.  The third long firearm was the musket.  The musket has traits common with the shotgun and the rifle.  It was similar to a shotgun in that it had a smooth bore but unlike the shotgun, it fired a single projectile like the rifle.  However, the musket was shorter than the rifle and its projectile did not seat as tightly in the smooth bore.  Ramming a loose fitting, soft lead ball down a shorter barrel made for shorter reload times than that of the rifle.  These two combined traits; the shorter length, and the relatively loose fit of the projectile in the bore, made it much faster to re-load than the rifle but with a reduced accuracy making it the weapon of choice for military duty almost exclusively.  The musket was 3-4 times as fast to reload as the rifle.  The musket was not a very desirable rifle for hunting as the smaller amount of powder used resulted in lower velocity of the projectiles and the lack of rifling meant poor accuracy beyond 40-50 yards. Accuracy wasn't a high priority to the military of the day.  The musket had only one use in those days and that was rapid volley fire at other human beings.  Military tactics in those days consisted of volley fire by a line of soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder shooting at another line of soldiers also standing shoulder to shoulder shooting back.  Shots taken were bound to hit someone in the line so the outcome of the battle was determined by who could fire the most shots in the least amount of time...without flinching.  Without question, the "assault weapon" of the colonial days was most definitely the musket.  Hunting really had nothing to do with the second amendment anyway so rifles and shotguns, used for hunting, were NOT what they had in mind to protect, but they were NOT excluded either.  The 2nd amendment does not read, "The right to bear arms (except military muskets) shall not be infringed."  Not being excluded, they were included.    There was no fear of tyrannical deer or invading turkeys as the second amendment was written to protect the private ownership of muskets, the battle rifles of the colonial day.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution, as written by our nation's Founding Fathers, states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." James Madison, the author, praised "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."  I offer a few other notable quotes from our founding fathers:

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The 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, 1788.

“... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.” -Richard Henry Lee Letters from the Federal Farmer, # 53 (1788) 

The last quotes that I'll contribute to this "intent" of the framers discussion come from their own words in the Federalist Papers. 

The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.

The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive.

The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms.

In the time since those great men made these clear and concise statements explaining and supporting their "intent", there have been a number of Supreme Court decisions further reinforcing this fundamental right.  In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) identified “arms” as being those expected to be used by the military. The SCOTUS also ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) that “the people” are individuals, thus stating that the 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to bear “arms”. Putting Miller and Heller together, the SCOTUS has affirmed that the 2nd Amendment PROTECTS the right of an individual to keep and bear arms that are ordinarily of military use, i.e. SPECIFICALLY civilian ownership of “assault rifles” is protected by the 2nd Amendment. I would also add that “A citizen may not be required to offer a good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he need.” Woollard v. Sheridan, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28498.

"Regulation" vs. "Elimination"

Provided the explanation of the original framer’s "intent," a discussion on regulation vs. elimination consequently becomes a moot point.  Given the intent of the original wording in the Bill of Rights, as documented above, there is no exclusion which, in turn, provides total inclusion.  To regulate is to create exclusion or a partial elimination. Furthermore, the elimination or regulation of certain types or capabilities of firearms, no matter the model, design or appearance, will not eliminate the evil behind the "intent" of those carrying out such heinous acts like Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Co Theater, or Sandy Hook.  The mere existence or access to the firearms themselves, their capabilities, are not the reason why these horrible tragedies occurred but rather an evil, misguided, deranged mind of certain individual people who carry them out.  The late Charleton Heston once said that, “....There are no good guns.  There are no bad guns.  Any gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing.  Any gun in the hands of a decent person is no threat to anybody – except bad people.” 

On May 18^th, 1927, Andrew Kehoe carried out an attack on Bath Consolidated School in Bath Township, Clinton County, Michigan.  He first murdered his wife who was ill with tuberculosis by hitting her on the head with a blunt object.  He then set off various incendiary devices on his homestead that caused the house and other farm buildings to be destroyed by the explosives’ blast and subsequent fires.  Almost simultaneously, he set off an explosion at the school consisting of hundreds of pounds of dynamite and incendiary pyrotol underneath the North wing of the school.  He then drove up to the school in his truck, stopped near rescue workers, and then used a rifle (the only firearm used in the whole event) to detonate more dynamite inside his truck which was filled with shrapnel.  This blast killed Kehoe, the school superintendent, and others nearby.  All total, 45 people were killed including Kehoe and his wife, 5 other adults and 38 children.  Kehoe, as history would provide, was believed to be angry after his defeat in the spring 1926 election for township clerk.  This, coupled with impending higher taxes and his farm facing foreclosure, may have triggered his plan. The Winchester Model 54 used utilizes a non-detachable box style magazine that only holds 5 cartridges.  It is a bolt action rifle.  It was not used on the children.  I’ll add to this the fact that the Thompson submachine gun was created by John T. Thompson before the Bath School Tragedy and made in 1919, General John T. Thompson, it’s creator, directed that the guns be modified for nonmilitary use. It is a fully automatic weapon. My point is that it is not the gun, but the evil in the person carrying out the act that is the cause.  One cannot regulate the misguided thoughts of men.

The “Slippery Slope”

Similar to how the regulation vs. elimination discussion becomes a “moot point” after establishing that there is no exclusion and therefore total inclusion, the concept that it is not the gun but the evil behind it consequently negates the whole “slippery slope” argument.  For those in politics today, pushing for any form of gun control, particularly those leading the charge, it’s all or nothing.  The “smoking gun” here is an interview with Diane Feinstein where she says, “...an outright ban, picking up every one of them."  Pair that with Eric Holder’s 1995 speech on gun control in front of the Women’s National Democratic Club where he says at 3:08 in the video, “…and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” Pair that ideology with Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s former Chief of Staff, now Mayor of Chicago saying, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste” and you have a pretty good case built for the intentions of those proposing gun control in our country and the great lengths to which they will go to achieve total control.  Of those three clips, Feinstein’s is probably the best for supporting the “slippery slope” intentions. Feinstein’s statement is a HUGE deal and should not be ignored in this discussion on a slippery slope.  If an inch is given, a mile will be taken by those standing lock step with Feinstein and Holder. If you watch all of that Holder speech, he also talks about bringing the media and celebrities into the fold to assist in this effort.  The media isn’t going to make a big deal about what Feinstein said if they are on board with Holders plan.  Furthermore, look at what has happened since Sandy Hook.  The media, perhaps capitalizing on “a serious crisis,” re-invigorated an already volatile debate in this country on the heels of the Aurora, Co theater shooting.  Interestingly, the Bath School tragedy occurred on May 18^th of 1927.  Just two days later, the media of the day which had been undoubtedly consumed by the tragic news and reporting on it, was entirely redirected to another story which left the Bath School tragedy almost completely forgotten in history.  What could have overshadowed that, you ask?  Charles Lindberg’s plane, The Spirit of St. Louis, took off from Roosevelt Field on Long Island on May 20^th headed to Le Bourget Field in Paris, France in the first ever, non-stop, trans-Atlantic flight. 

The key to this whole discussion is in the facts of the Bath School tragedy and the intents of evil, not the gun.  I re-iterate the fact that although a gun was used in some way during the Bath tragedy, it was not the primary weapon used.  The evil behind it was the true culprit, not the dynamite.  Found amongst the remains of Kehoe’s home was a sign, found affixed to a fence post that read “Criminals are made, not born.”  It is the criminal, not his tool, which is to blame.

I have put a tremendous amount of effort into this document, which Jennifer keeps referring to as, my Thesis.  It is something I am very passionate about, something that has taught me a lot in researching it.  It has helped reinforce and clarify my own position in the whole debate.  I hope that you will put some time towards reading the referenced links, really thinking about where we stand as a nation, what so many men and women have fought to preserve ever since 1775 when 77 armed (with muskets remember) citizen-Minutemen stood on the other end of a bridge in Lexington with around 700 British troops on the other end.  My grandfather was shot in Metz, France in WWII standing up to a German army, who, by the way, had disarmed it’s citizenry as one of the first steps in the rise of the Third Reich.  There are things you compromise on, others, you do not. 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

~John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770

In my research, I came across some very good material worth your time.  I found no logical place to interject these into this discussion but should not go unmentioned.

This is an excellent tutorial explaining “The Assault Weapon”.  It is worth your time, I assure you.  I, myself, learned a good bit about it.

This is an article by Libertarian, now retired, Atlanta radio personality Neal Boortz on “high capacity” magazines.

This is a rather inspirational piece by Bob Owens on some history of the start of The American Revolution and the few who stood their ground.