Photo by Jonathan Javier, via Flickr

November 20, 2017 Kevin Fairchild 34Comment

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 to the United States Constitution is by far one of the most controversial topics in contemporary politics. Unfortunately, due to the tragic events in Las Vegas and Texas, the debate has heated up in recent months as the left’s assault on gun rights has been given new life. The biggest roadblock for the left however, is their unwavering ignorance when it comes to firearms. It is difficult to legislate against guns effectively when you possess little knowledge about guns to begin with.

In the immediate aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting that claimed the lives of 58 concert-goers and injured over 500 more, politicians on the left were placing blame on the NRA faster than details about the shooting could be reported. Calls for action and “common sense gun control” ran non-stop across all media platforms.  With the news that the shooter had used a device known as a bump stock, a modification that utilizes the recoil of a weapon to mimic automatic fire, it seemed mere common sense to outlaw these devices. The problem is that the bill that was introduced, drafted by Congressman Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), is worded so poorly that it could easily be interpreted in a way that bans all semi-automatic weapons from civilian ownership. The exact language of the bill bans any device that would “increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle.” The problem with that being there is no rate of fire for a semi-automatic rifle. The rate of fire is determined by the person pulling the trigger, to increase the rate of fire one simply has to pull the trigger more rapidly, which by the language of the bill makes this action illegal.

One of the more alarming things about the bill mentioned above is that it was drafted by a Republican, the party that claims to defend our Second Amendment rights. The language of this bill, just like the language of so many pundits and commentators on the left, shows a very large gap between the two sides of the gun debate. The divide is not just that of differing viewpoints but of knowledge, or lack thereof, on one side. It seems the sides are less pro-gun versus anti-gun and more pro-gun versus the mostly ill-informed. One would be hard pressed to find a gun control activist that knows very many of the specifics when it comes to firearms. Most gun control activists can only tell you what an AR-15 looks like, they can not tell you what round it fires or how to operate it, or even what “AR” stands for. This information is easy to research, however, for some reason our friends on the left choose to remain stubbornly ignorant on the topic.

“The Second Amendment allows the American people to protect themselves against enemies of freedom and peace, be it from a foreign entity or from our own government.”

This brings us to one of the left’s favorite arguments in the debate which, to be fair, is often not provided with the correct answer from conservatives. “Why would it ever be necessary for a civilian to own a semi-automatic rifle?” This is often met with inadequate responses such as “because it’s fun” or “because I can.” As a matter of fact, the question itself is answered in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — an armed citizenry is necessary for the security of a free state. This is the part that many prefer not to discuss because few want to entertain the possibility that our government can turn tyrannical, despite history providing more that enough case-studies on it. The Second Amendment allows the American people to protect themselves against enemies of freedom and peace, be it from a foreign entity or from our own government.

Following the heartbreaking events in Sutherland Springs, Texas where 26 people were senselessly murdered during a Sunday church service, the left immediately reverted back to their posts, blaming the NRA, Republicans, and the pro-gun crowd for allowing this massacre to happen. The weapon used in the shooting was the Ruger 556, an AR-15 style rifle that the left says should be illegal to own. However, what the left is refusing to acknowledge is that Stephen Willeford, the man who shot the assailant and ended the attack, was also armed with an AR-15 style rifle. Conservatives do not say “the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” for our health, we say it because it is irrefutably true. This did not stop Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein from introducing a bill that would effectively ban “military style” weapons. The bill also bans the manufacture or purchase of magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets. This limit is rather strange considering there are pistols such as the Glock 19 which has a standard magazine capacity of 15 rounds, however it is just another “common sense” provision to the ill-informed.

The fight to protect our gun rights is an arduous struggle that will most likely continue until the end of time. It is up to conservatives, and all fair-minded people to defend the rights of U.S. citizens to bear arms. We can not afford to blind ourselves to one of the most glaring themes in modern history, and that is the first step towards authoritarianism is disarming the populace. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of, if not the most important provision in any governmental document today. The Founding Fathers debated every sentence, word, and comma contained in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. They chose to preserve this right of the people because they understood what an abusive government was capable of. It is of the highest importance that we continue the effort to preserve this right of the American public to safeguard against the ever watchful eyes of tyranny.

Follow this author on Twitter: @KFairchild63

The Cincinnati Republic is fighting to bring reason and logic back to the forefront of our politics. Join us! Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter.

  • PuntGun

    Iterations of the Second Amendment help explain a lot, such as “who is the militia?” From the National Archives:

    “James Madison proposed that the following language be inserted into Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution between Clauses 3 and 4: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
    June 8, 1789

    Madison’s proposed amendment consisted of three elements: the right to keep and bear arms, the public militia, and the right of conscientious objection to militia service.”
    [Page 49]

    “Article I, Section 9—Between Clauses 2 and 3 insert: A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
    July 28, 1789”
    [Page 50]

    “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
    August 24, 1789”
    [Page 51]

    “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.
    September 14, 1789”
    [Page 52]


  • tom2

    Ironically, proofers omitted the word “state” from the quoted 2nd Amendment. Freudian perhaps. But in Revolutionary War days, the state was supreme and the federal government was a mere coordinator of states in times when they had to pull together. The 1st and 2nd Amendments were adopted in 1789 and the rest were adopted in 1791. These were colonies making a difficult transition to independent states and well along the path to a new nation. The idea that they’d be driven by a local overseer in lieu of King George III, was unthinkable. We’re safer today than at any time since crime records have been kept and many believe it’s precisely because sufficient numbers of civilians (aka militia) remain armed. Leftists would reverse all that.

    What drives leftists to such extremes when they know a hundred million owners won’t tolerate confiscation without unimaginable fury? Leftists were badly beaten during the last administration and have started over with little things like magazine size, ammunition taxes, license fees, sound suppressors, bullet shapes and on and on. But eventually, they’ll temporarily settle for universal registration because that fundamentally transforms a hundred million owners into dependents. Once they know who the owners are, they’ll proceed to choose which of them are allowed to be licensed. Permission to own a firearm is the grandest of all entitlements. And leftists need the hundred million owners to be dependent on the government in order to convince them to vote for more leftists. It’s a flimflam. Don’t let ’em get away with it.

  • Infidel7.62X51

    It is not ignorance of firearms it is hatred of firearms. Every once in a while they let it slip, as in the Boston Globe last week stating all guns need to be banned and Giffords claiming we need controls on muzzle loaders.

    • William Bilyeu

      It’s not firearms they hate, it’s people they hate and fear being armed and able to resist the repressive laws they wish to pass.

      • TZ

        Wrong, us liberals hate the cowards who want firearms to intimidate and bully.

        • William Bilyeu

          How is it you can be wrong about everything. I read your comments and just shake my head that anyone can be that ignorant.

          • TZ

            I read your comments and shake my head that anyone can be such a coward they cannot abide by duly passed laws and instead resort to violence when they lose at the ballot box. Truly a cowardly viewpoint. I am proud to be an American, why aren’t you?

            Also some nerve you have to tell us liberals what we really hate and fear. Guess what bozo, it is cowardly people who threaten violence to resolve political debate. Loser!

          • William Bilyeu

            Have I resorted to violence? Not like the liberal who shot a Republican congressman at a baseball practice. Or like the Democrat who tackled a Republican Senator from behind like a coward. Again your comment only reveals your ignorant. You know nothing about me. Or most issues you comment about.

          • TZ

            I don’t know if you have resorted to violence, at least yet. Your wife can probably explain that better to you. Or has she left you already?

            I do know you are dumb enough to claim to know why I oppose guns. I just corrected your ignorance.

            By the way, “being armed and able to resist the repressive laws they wish to pass” indicates you are prone to violence if you don’t get your way.
            So your words tell a lot more about you than you think.

          • William Bilyeu

            I claim you are ignorant from several of you comments in many areas. You admit to ignorance on whether I am violent, but you posted any Republicans being racists, about the history of Nazism and other comments which were completely wrong and show a total lack of knowledge of history and politics. To be condemned by you is really a compliment, because you are wrong almost always.

          • TZ

            What a whiner you are. Once again all you do is complain about how wrong I am but you don’t actually have any arguments. Just need to have a gun to feel like a man. What a coward.

          • William Bilyeu

            All you have done is recite insults about people and events you know nothing about and then you call someone you known nothing about a whiner and a coward. If that is not ignorance….

          • TZ

            I only have insults for someone who is such a coward that he thinks armed insurrection is an answer to laws he doesn’t like. In a democracy there is no just cause for armed revolution. You gun nuts are just little bullies who want to intimidate others. Well I am not afraid of you. You don’t have the guts to do anything but cry and whine about how the liberals are so mean to you. Grow a pair.

          • William Bilyeu

            If all who carry guns are cowards, than all military service members and police are cowards, according to your logic. I have constitutional rights which you want to deny. And I give my proper name. I don’t hide behind an alias, like you. I have the the right and, sometimes, the need to protect myself from threats that you neither know, nor understand, because you are ignorant of my situation. And you continue to display that ignorance, and express pride in it.

          • TZ

            I never said all who carry guns are cowards, I said those who carry guns to intimidate others are. And I especially said that you are a coward because you feel treason is a legitimate way to address loses at the ballot box. Reread the posts I never said anything about taking away rights.

            Furthermore, you lie when you say NEED to protect yourself from threats by carrying a gun. Not only are you changing your tune about the reason this whole thread started, (your desire to have guns to commit treason), if they are aware of serious danger any sane person would avoid those situations. From your responses here it appears more likely that you intentionally create these dangerous situations by threatening those around you. Either way, that is not a need it is a desire.

            It appears your gun fetish is isn’t about rights or self protection, but derives from some inadequacy about your ability to resolve conflict without violence. Your ignorant post about why liberals hate guns, demonstrates this irrational and dangerous behavior. Any civilized person would realize that most conflict can be avoided or resolved without violence. But you do not. Clearly you are the danger. You want to shoot me for criticizing you, don’t you?

            Go ahead and whine some more, cowardly bully.

          • William Bilyeu

            If the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the Second Amendment is a part of it, the treasonous ones are those trying to override it. Again, according to your “logic,” the patriots who failed to disarm at Lexington and Concord were cowardly traitors, and the British were correct to deny them their proclaimed rights. I live in an area of occasional wild animals, and I have a right to defend myself and others from animals, including human ones.

          • TZ

            You are correct, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You should read it sometime, it will clear up your confusion. Here is an interesting part:

            Art. III, Section 3 US Constitution
            “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. ”

            So what you are claiming is that the second amendment overrides Art. III. That is ignorant nonsense. There is no provision of the 2nd amendment that supports armed revolution. In fact it clearly states the opposite. “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 well regulated and security of a free state parts are key. So you are wrong.

            The patriots at Lex and Concord were indeed considered cowardly traitors (and terrorists) by George III. For example: “Nathan Hale was an American soldier and spy for the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War. He volunteered for an intelligence-gathering mission in New York City but was captured by the British and executed.” So you are wrong twice.

            The difference being that in a democracy the citizens as a whole are the monarch and exercise their power thru the ballot box, unlike a monarchy or dictatorship. When your side loses a election, there is no moral justification for revolution, you need to win elections. In colonial times, the phrase “no taxation without representation” was a rallying cry of many American colonists. In the US you do have such representation, so there is no legitimate justification for rebellion. So you are wrong thrice.

            And if that isn’t enough, you might want to study the Shay’s and Whiskey Rebellions. In both people were upset over tax laws. In both instances, the armed rebellions was put down and several of the leaders were convicted of treason and hanged. In the Whiskey rebellion, President George Washington himself rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency. So it seems George would also agree you are full of it.

            As for wild animals, unless you are completely inept at woodcraft, or live somewhere other than the Midwest, there is no animal you need to fear. So that is just nonsense you put out in a cowardly attempt to distract from your treasonous statements.

            Oh My, Lions, and Tigers and bears!

          • William Bilyeu

            And you are ignoring Article I, Sections 8, 9, and 10, which is again enforced in the Bill of Rights, especially Amendments IX and X. Those limit the power of the federal government. When the federal government exceeds those limits they become domestic enemies. And Article III, Section 3 defines treason in “levying War against them.” Forty-four of the United States contain articles enforcing “the right to keep and bear arms” in their state constitutions. So who would be committing treason against “them.” Perhaps you are the one who should study the United States Constitution.
            And I have seen and shot at animals that are dangerous in my area, as has my neighbors. And that is in the Midwest. Again you show your ignorance by thinking that you know woodcraft that you do not.

          • TZ

            Nonsense! Art 1, Sec 8, 9, 10, do limit the power of the federal and state government. But they are silent on a remedy for any violations. The remedy is defined in Art. III, the Supreme Court. Of course you know this, you are just being an ass.
            I sure you shot up some poor animals, my guess is coyotes, but they are not dangerous to you. You are just another weak-assed little boy who needs his guns to make up for his lack of real courage. Grow a pair and become a real man.

          • William Bilyeu

            Actually, I shot raccoons which can be dangerous. I have seen and had to defend myself against feral dogs in packs, bobcats, panthers, and wolves. And I have acquaintances that have encountered bears. As usual you claim knowledge which you do not have.

          • TZ

            This just proves what a coward you are. Raccoons, bobcats, feral dogs (which is made up) will not attack a human unless provoked. I hear bobcats are returning to my area. I can’t wait to see one. But they all hunt small prey, not a grown man. My neighbors tell me they all will attack chickens with gusto. Maybe that is your problem.

            There are no panthers or wolves in the mid west, certainly not near Ohio. So you are just being an ass there.Even they will not attack grown humans unless the humans cause the problem. As usual you lie your ass off and pretend to have a point other than you need a gun to feel manly.

            You are a joke.

          • William Bilyeu

            Raccoons are quite dangerous and occasionally carry rabies. And I and and neighbors have seen wolves. As usual you show your ignorance. If you have never heard of feral, or wild dogs, you are incredibly ignorant. I was protected against the dogs once by a pet dog, other times by an axe and by a gun. Don’t try to tell me what I have seen and experienced in my own lifetime. (By the way, one dog that attacked me, later attacked a young girl and severely injured her. And my neighbor has seen and mentioned the wolf.) Again you just do not know what you comment about.

          • TZ


          • William Bilyeu

            I realize that you think that you are omniscient, but you are just ignorant. Your resort to childish name-calling merely proves it.

          • TZ

            WAAAAH! Go shoot some more rapid raccoons and feral dogs. Make sure you tell the neighbors you killed their poodle!

          • William Bilyeu

            Oh, omniscient one, one of those nonexistent animals, according to your comments, killed a favorite pet last night. I will decide how to defend and protect myself, my family, my animals, and my property, including pets and chattel animals. I think you should consult a qualified biologist or zoologist before you make delusional claims.

          • TZ

            Is that before or after you start an armed rebellion? Sounds like it is too late to protect your pets properly. Of course that is just more of your lies. You don’t have pets, family, animals or property. “Chattel” animals? Try again city boy. Just from your language I can tell you are “all hat and no cow”. Cows are the ones who go moo by the way, city boy.

          • William Bilyeu

            Wrong again, as usual. I doubt that you could find my home, even if I gave you the address. I have barely lived in a small town, and never in a city. Why do you continue to display that ignorance.

          • TZ

            You are confusing contempt with ignorance, city boy. I’m sure all kinds dangerous predators live on your cul-de-sac. How come you couldn’t protect your favorite pet city boy? Apparently your skill with guns is woefully inadequate. Feral dogs and chattel animals! What a countrified talk you have.

          • William Bilyeu

            No, you’re ignorant, and apparently bigoted, too. Why else would you assume that someone who lives in the country and not a “city boy.” In fact, I find more intelligent people in the country and in “fly-over” States than on either coast.

          • TZ

            Hey burb boy, keep on lying. I did not assume anything, your choice or language and fake stories busted you. You have no qualifications to judge intelligence, you haven’t lived on either coast, nor have you ever lived in the “country”. Or do you expect me to believe and you fellow country friends sit around and use words like feral, chattel or fly-over? You said you need a gun to protect you pets, yet you didn’t. Sounds like you have a hard time dealing with your inadequacies, so you make up bullshit stories of false bravado. Weak dude.

            Do you really tell your friends you need a gun because you are afraid of rabid raccoons and feral dogs? Does that sound manly to you? You crack me up! I’m guessing you live in West Chester or Liberty Township.

          • William Bilyeu

            So now I am not even alive. I don’t live on the coast. I don’t live in the country. So I must not live at all.
            Again another sign of ignorance. You must deny that anyone could possibly disagree with you. It seems to me that you must feel inadequate to do that. I have not “made up” anything. Anyone who is actually omnipresent or omniscient, instead of merely deluding himself, would know there is such a thing a as feral and rabid animals, instead of denying it. If you wish to face one unarmed, please, go ahead. I do not depend on someone else to protect me, as you obviously do. I can think of nothing more “unmanly” than expecting others to protect you. I am afraid I do not know of either of the places you mention, but I will look them up.
            Again you make claims that only reveal complete and total ignorance.

          • William Bilyeu

            Hey, did you read about the raccoon that attacked a defenceless child? Oh, that’s right, according to you, such things could never happen.

  • TZ

    “Conservatives do not say “the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” for our health, we say it because it is irrefutably true.”

    The bad guy was only stopped after he had murdered 26 people. That is not good enough.

    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

    There is no second amendment right to revolt against the government. The notion of armed revolt is precluded by a democratic republic. There is no legal redress to government policy except through the ballot box. You do not get a pass to revolt if you don’t like the laws.

    The whole premise of this article is a nonsensical justification for treason. Childish, cowardly nonsense!