“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