The Second Amendment (as originally written):
"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 (for the Learning Impaired):
"Because a Very Effective, Armed, Population is Essential in order for America to stay Free and safe, the Absolute Right of Everyone to Own and to Carry any type of Weapon they choose, in any way they wish, anywhere they see fit, cannot be regulated, licensed, or even questioned in the smallest way!"
Do you understand what the Second Amendment is saying? It is saying that proposing, passing, or enforcing any "law" concerning guns is a serious crime. Any "law". That's what "shall not be infringed" means. The Constitution may be dead, but its corpse is a very good yardstick by which to measure how corrupt the US government has become.
In spite of this truth, you may need some information to protect yourself from those "laws":
There was a time long ago when even I didn't understand why I thought guns were so important. I wondered if I were wrong. Perhaps I should just go along with the winds of change. After all, it seemed that everywhere I turned, guns were demonized and blamed for everything from crime to suicide. I began to study the facts, and look at history. I finally came to some conclusions. You may not agree with my views, but I would like to explain what I came up with.
Guns are, after all, only tools, right? Yes, and no. They are tools, but they are so much more. They are not "good" or "bad", though they can be used in good ways or bad ways.
First, they can be used as tools to hunt food in situations where the supply train has broken down. They can be used to defend oneself from criminals. They can be used for recreational purposes.
The second use for guns, even more important than as simple tools, is as a psychological weapon. The main reason I "obsess" over them is that my enemies, the statists and authoritarians worldwide, also obsess over them. They obsess over keeping me from having and effectively using them. They obsess over demonizing them in the minds of the people who don't quite understand the importance of keeping (owning) and bearing (carrying) guns. Their obsession feeds my determination to never surrender my guns. Not if they threaten, beg, or continue to brainwash the rest of the world that "no one needs guns in the 21st century". Guns in the hands of the private population is a great psychological lever to use against tyrants. Voting, protesting, educating, and agitating will only go so far. When government gets out of control, there is only one solution. I intend to keep my options open. As long as governments exist, there will be a dire need for guns and people willing and able to effectively use them against tyrants.
Interpreting the Second Amendment
I suppose the whole issue of "interpreting" the Second Amendment is very upsetting to some people. Funny. Since that is what courts have been doing for years. The Second Amendment is not difficult to understand. The opening statement, by mentioning a "militia", seems to be a big part of the contention, even though that only explained why the founders thought it was necessary, but didn't limit its scope in any way. It would be like me saying "Gold coins being necessary for the purchase of a good meal, the right of the people to own and to spend gold coins shall not be infringed". It does not limit the owning of gold coins to only people who wish to eat "a good meal". Just as the First Amendment protects five different rights, the Second Amendment protects two rights; the right to form a militia, and also the right to own and to carry weapons.
People who have an issue with my interpretation of the Second Amendment should read the writings of the founders from the time of the adoption of The Bill of Rights if they don't believe me. You will find that they did mean for it to be understood just as I understand it. You might find that I am a radical; yet I am not wrong.
I suppose that I should make clear that "rights" DO NOT come from government, nor does any government have the authority to restrict rights. I have written this all before, I realize, but it bears repeating. Rights existed before government and rights will outlast government. The problem we have is that government does not want you to recognize this fact. Government wants you to think that they grant you a right, perhaps by passing a "Bill of Rights", and that therefore, government can take away or restrict that right. This is not a description of a "right, but of a "privilege". Privileges can be restricted or outright revoked. Rights can not. Rights can only be respected or violated.
People do not always use their rights in a wise way. This is illustrated by the ubiquitous example of falsely "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater". This would be a stupid and evil thing to do, but this also doesn't mean that everyone who goes into a theater must have their tongue cut out in advance to keep them from shouting "fire". If guns offend you, you have a right to not own one, but you do not have a right to forbid your neighbor from owning one. I have the right to carry an AK-47 down the streets in New York City if I choose to do so, though the disgusting tax-addicted enforcers of the NYPD would undoubtedly choose to immorally arrest (or murder) me if I did, but I do not have a right to point that gun at innocent people. The citizens of New York City do not have a right to not be offended or frightened by the sight of a gun. No one has rights that are more important than anyone else's rights. "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." It has been pointed out to me that the state considers "fist swinging" to be "assault".
Here is my take on the assault issue. I think that "assault" is a legal concept that has no basis in reality, apart from the government. Thinking this, I would still claim that until actual force is initiated, or a credible threat to do so has been made, no rights have been violated. A person swinging his fist at a high velocity toward your nose is a credible threat. Inertia would prevent him from stopping before contact is made. Knowing the laws of motion, you could make a reasonable assumption that your nose was in real danger and you could strike back.
Otherwise, with "laws" regulating fist swinging, I can't help but wonder how much distance from nose-tip to fist would be demanded. It would vary from person to person, depending on a lot of issues. The "assault" wouldn't even need to necessarily be aggressive in nature for a particularly "brittle" person to make an issue of it. Then again, even a standardized "legal distance" would be pointless since unless the judge and/or jury were present during the event, a subjective interpretation would make the same action seem different to various observers.
This is why I still see the right to swing your fist ending at the tip of my nose, as long as no contact is made, nor would be made without intervention.
HOWEVER, in a free society you could take action to defend yourself against perceived aggression using your best judgement (or reflexes) and then take your chances with a dispute resolution organization or a private "court", which would be more open to actually achieving justice than current government courts are. After all, they will have free market competition so will need to maintain a spotless reputation in order to attract "business". If I were hired to rule on such a case, I would not fault a person for striking back against someone who was swinging a fist at his nose, even if the nose in question were not touched. And I seriously doubt anyone else would either.
Just because a right exists does not mean that the exercise of that right is always the best course of action. This is where I think responsibility comes in. You may have a right to swing your fist up to the tip of my nose, yet you have a responsibility to not do so, and if you choose to do so, you may find yourself on the dangerous end of a gun barrel. And rightly so. You must accept any and all consequences of your actions, or you will find yourself getting a bad reputation and possibly shunned to the point of starvation (or living on charity).
Rights are absolute, but not everything is a right. You have a right to live, and to defend your life. You have a right to live as you see fit, as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. This is key: If it violates the rights of someone else, it is not a right. You have a right to do what you enjoy as long as you do not violate the rights of others; a right does not place an obligation on others. You have a right to avoid involuntary servitude: the fruits of your time and labor belong to you alone, unless you choose to share or give them away. On the other hand, you do not have a right to "universal government paid health care", or a right to walk through a crowd swinging a sword, a right to not breathe second-hand smoke, nor a right to not be offended. Stop and think a moment and it is easy to see the difference between a right and something that is not a right.
Are some people so devoid of personal responsibility that they fear that if they own and carry defensive weapons they will suddenly lose control of themselves and become murderous maniacs? Or is this what they fear that you and I will do?
I believe that by looking at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights we can see how far America has fallen from what it was established to be: a beacon of liberty. If we could somehow get America back in line with the Constitution, I could live with that. I really want a truly free country where no one would ever need to fear the government as long as they are not initiating force or fraud on another person. No constitution can ever guarantee that. Personal responsibility can.
Defining Down Freedom
I was recently reading something about "freedom" written by someone in another country. He stated that "only in America are guns equated with freedom". I don't know if it is true or not, but it makes me wonder. This person thinks he is mostly "free". It seems that most Americans are also under the impression that they are "free". By most any measure, we are not. Does this make us feel inferior? Is it so disconcerting to admit that the US government has stomped out freedom in all but its most "harmless" incarnations that we delude ourselves? Do we redefine "freedom" in such a way that we can still claim to be free? Perhaps we lower the bar enough so that our version of "freedom" is still achievable without going to war against liberty's enemies. Does the person whose definition of freedom started this train of thought feel that guns are not connected to freedom because guns have been outlawed completely in his country, and are therefore a moot point? Do others in his country feel the same? They can't have guns to enforce freedom, so they "dumb-down" freedom to a point where it appears to be within reach of their crippled hands? What is your standard of freedom? Is it a weakened version that is government-approved or is it the real liberty to live your life as you see fit. Where as long as you do not harm or defraud anyone else, the government will stay completely out of every single aspect of your life to the point that, for all you know, government may not exist?
I am sickened, appalled, and infuriated that government still demands that teachers and students continue to be sacrificed on the blood-soaked altar of gun control! Call it what it is: victim disarmament. If the state is to continue to demand that children be herded into their indoctrination centers, then at the very least, allow teachers the tools to defend our kids' lives! And for goodness sake, don't advertise schools as "gun-free zones". Anyone with a mind can see that this is just begging for violence. School massacres lay directly on the hands of every politician, bureaucrat, or activist who has ever advanced the theory that "guns cause violence". Evil people cause violence, with or without guns. Guns are the only tool that can effectively give the small and the weak a fighting chance against predators. Only a monster would forbid them the use of this tool. Are you a monster?
Prohibit Guns to the "Mentally Ill"?
You didn't ask, but I'll tell you anyway why I oppose forbidding guns to those judged "mentally ill". Mainly it is because I do not trust those who get to decide who is mentally ill, and get to rule on what constitutes a mental illness. By their hoplophobic reasoning, anyone who desires to own a gun or does not bow to their "authority" is mentally ill. The simple desire to own a gun could easily become the excuse to deny the right. Violent people, mentally ill or not, would be (and should be) culled from society by their intended victims if government meddling were to stop. The only way to be truly safe from predators is to protect the absolute right of everyone to own and to carry any type of weapon they want, any where they go, in any way they see fit; openly or concealed. That way when a person who is truly mentally ill decides to go on a killing spree, it will be ended quickly by the fully free people around him. Just as it should be.
A Gun Control Compromise*
I have been accused of being an extremist in defense of the right to own and to carry, anywhere you see fit, any type of weapon whatsoever, in any way you wish, without asking permission from anyone. I suppose it is time to reconsider and announce I am ready to accept "reasonable gun laws".
So.... which 50% of the victim disarmament laws are we going to repeal this year? Since my long-term goal is to remove all legal restrictions from guns, I am willing to use the same logic that the merchants of victimhood use when telling me that I must compromise. I will not demand the immediate repeal of all federal, state, and local laws against gun owners, but will compromise and only seek the removal of half of them. This year.
Compromise means meeting halfway; not banning this type of gun today, then that type of gun tomorrow, followed by registration of handguns next week. No, we gun owners compromised when the 1934 National Firearms Treason was committed. Then again in 1968 and regularly since then. This "compromise" is only moving in one direction, and that isn't compromise at all. A true compromise would have been if you said you wanted the 1934 NFA and once you got that, there would be no more victim disarmament laws proposed ever again. Not this sneaky, incremental banning of self defense. It is your turn to accept compromise. I am truly willing to meet you half way. I would even accept the repeal of only one victim disarmament law as long as I get to choose which one. If you choose, then I stand by my demand for abolishing 50% of them.Well, Sarah Brady; Chuck Schumer; Mike Bloomberg; which gun owner vilification laws will you help me get rid of? You couldn't possibly oppose this plan could you? All we are asking for is "reasonable restrictions". Only an extremist would refuse to compromise. Right?
*Not that any of the governmental liberty-haters would accept my compromise anyway, but this is intended as satire.