by Brad Lacerda
“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.”
That is the Second Amendment. The following is my own interpretation. Students of history remember a nation embroiled in a war with England over taxation without representation. The founding fathers knew that the ability to defend oneself went hand in hand with being free. Equal footing mitigates oppression. The more lopsided the strength of force the stronger the tyranny.
Equally armed, one can live and die free. The founding fathers were truly wise. They were also fair men who largely held morals based on the word of God. Why do I claim this? These men were in a position to become the leaders of a new country. They could have written the constitution so as to benefit themselves and granting direct power over the people. It could have been King George Washington as head of state with lords bowing all around him.
When the Second Amendment was written, it was drafted not to protect the founding fathers’ access to power, but to protect the general populace and the future of the country itself. In a truly unselfish and forever world-changing gesture, it was written in a manner that the right to bear arms was not granted by any man. It is a divine right passed down from the Creator that all men and women have the right to defend themselves and their property with arms.
The first 10 amendments were written in 1791, and over the years the Bill of Rights has grown to 27 amendments. When writing the Constitution the right to free speech was the number-one amendment, essential to a free people. They believed the right to bear arms was also critical to a free people, so critical it was penned as amendment number two.
In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that
[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.
This ruling clarified that the Second amendment was an inherent right. Not to be infringed by Congress, nor granted by the Constitution.
It has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.
In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment “[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”
This ruling clarified that the people had the right to bear arms in a reasonable relationship to the Government.
Without the equal footing, the Government would have too much power over the people. This allows the inherent right to bear arms be of sufficient measure to preserve freedom for the populace over a tyrannical government.
The weaponry available to citizens in the late 1700s, of course, were very different from today, but in many ways similar. Regardless of improvements in technology, the people still have the right to bear arms of reasonable relationship to Government. This shall not be infringed.
Today, the standard military issue rifle for the U.S. Military is changing from the M16 to the M4 Carbine. Among many reasons for the switch is that the M4 is more versatile and does not have a fixed stock. This means the Government has options and can attach any stock they like. A bump stock is an example of an alternate stock. The M4 also does away with 3-round bursts. It shoots semi-automatic or can be customized. The M4A1 is a variant that can fire full burst. This among many other features is why our military uses the M4 Carbine as their staple rifle.
The United Nations Peacekeeping forces typically carry and AK-47 or the M16. Both are AR-15 style rifles. The Canadian Army carries the Colt Canada C7. The Mexican Army uses an “assault rifle” of their own design called the FX-05 Xiuhcoatl. A rifle of Mexican design, it fires the same ammunition as AR-15 models.
AR also does not mean “Assault Rifle.” “AR” is the company Armalite and 15 is the model number they assigned to the particular design.
Do you trust the government? Please answer that question in your head. Let’s suppose a ban on AR-15 style rifles was passed. Then what? Who collects the guns from people who turn them in and who tracks down the rest? The government? How did you answer the question I posed at the beginning of this paragraph?
Throughout history tyrants have gained power by disarming the populations under the guise of safety and protection. I believe there are wealthy elites, bankers, foreign and domestic leaders, who have been trying to gain full control of this country since it was established. That is another discussion in and of itself.
The moment we the people don’t have equal access to self-defense as the government is the day this country changes forever.
As I write this this year to date there have been 841 people shot in Chicago. 168 were homicides. Chicago has a fatal shooting every 18 hours and 18 minutes, and someone is shot every 3 hours and 39 minutes. Almost exclusively by handguns.
Many gun control advocates and most of the MSM will lean toward hand guns for self defense as being acceptable but there is no need for AR-15 style rifles. In my opinion, wealthy billionaires who run the media conglomerates allow the view that handguns are okay to the population. Not because they agree with the Second Amendment, but because they know in a bigger picture a hand gun is seriously disadvantaged against an AR-15 style rifle, exponentially so in a group scenario. It is a tough subject to think about.
There are people who misuse technology for terrible reasons. Guns. Vehicles. Bladed weapons. Poisons. Explosives. Why the laser beam focus on AR-15 rifles and bump stocks when tobacco has taken millions of lives?
The reason is that this country and its citizens are targeted. We always have been and always will be. Someone else is always aiming for number one. It seems like a fairy tale because we have not seen armed troops marching in American streets in our lifetime. When there is a tragic misuse of a weapon people are being conditioned to focus on those anomalies and not the threat to the very way of American life and freedom. I feel people become complacent and look for quick fixes like bans on an AR-15 style rifle to cure specific domestic incidents (which are horrifying, and why this issue draws passionate attention) without stopping to think about the bigger picture and consider other solutions than just screaming for a ban.
We as a nation will never agree on this; however, I do believe we are still a country after 200-plus years because of our right to bear arms relative to that of the government. Things changed long ago for Native Americans when men with rifles appeared. Their arms were less advanced at the time. They were forced to capitulate and their way of life forever changed. That scenario has repeated over history for thousands of years. We are not immune to or special in the face of the mistakes of the past — it is an illusion.
Domestic misuses of firearms must certainly be addressed. The overhaul and general use and maintenance of the registry database must be addressed and used as intended. The problem must be solved by human innovation, not bans. The knowledge, training, respect, and safety of guns is something everyone should know and share. Work hard to mitigate the bad and highlight the positives. It’s what keeps us free.
The right to keep and bear arms is a right from the Creator, not the government. That was the founding fathers’ philosophy.