More on the Second Amendment

Discussing differing views

On March 24, 2021, I wrote my article called “Dark Ages of the Second Amendment”, which you can read here. To give a quick recap of the article, I wrote that reasonable gun laws are not an infringement of a person’s Second Amendment rights. Firearms being outlawed completely would certainly be an infringement, but since we can own firearms (and I do), reasonable laws can, and should be enacted. Nor would I ever support the confiscation of all firearms in the United States, whether or not the Second Amendment existed.

I received a comment that same day from a person identified as Alan Sexton. In his comment he stated that my views of the Second Amendment were totally irrelevant. He believes any gun law is an infringement. He went on to say that “to the chagrin of the anti-gun crowd, many folks on the political left hold the same view as folks on the right.“

I wrote a long comment in reply to his second comment that any laws are an infringement, but for some reason WordPress failed to post the comment. So, I’m going to recreate the my comment as an article instead.

Let me begin by saying that I once held the same beliefs as Alan, for over 20 years. But, as I saw more and more murders (from individual killings to the mass killings) happening I came to change my views on the Second Amendment. I was also a conservative of the Republican Party during that period as well. Now, either “party” are anathema to me since neither party serves the people.

In my reply, I asked some questions that I hope Alan will read here and give substantive answers to in the comment section of this article. I also offer Alan the opportunity to write an article that I will post on this blog. I guarantee that I will not edit your article in any way. The opportunity is yours to educate people on your Second Amendment beliefs in detail. My email link is listed on my Contact page.

Okay, so off I go.

The Second Amendment reads, “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.“

We will dispense with the part about a well regulated militia, since I (likely as Alan does) believe that is totally separate from the second part dealing with “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The discussion comes down to what law(s) infringe on the people’s right.

My first question to Alan was that if any firearm law/restriction can not be enacted, then why has the Supreme Court not handed down a ruling that states that no laws may be enacted?

Next, by your beliefs are you stating that:

• Firearms should not have serial numbers (Gun Control Act of 1968)?
• Federal Firearm Licenses are illegal?
• Convicted felons can purchase, possess, and carry any firearm they desire?
• People with serious mental illness can purchase, possess, and carry any firearm they desire?
• There should be no age limit on the purchase, possession, and carrying of a firearm?
• People can possess and carry firearms (whether concealed or openly) into any state legislative building, the US Capitol, any court (including the US Supreme Court), any police station, any jail or prison, any place of worship, any bar/tavern/lounge, any primary or secondary school, any hospital, and so on?
• People can purchase any possess firearms like the M240 machine gun, the M249 SAW, the M2 .50 caliber machine gun, a grenade launcher (M79 or M203 as examples), etc…?

My next question Alan is, how do you propose to deal with the mass shooting incidents that have caused multiple deaths (Atlanta, Boulder, and – just last night – the FedEx building in Indianapolis as examples)? There have been so many that this is a reasonable question. Now, I concede that no law will stop all of these types of incidents, but some could be deterred with reasonable firearms laws. Is America just suppose to shrug our collective shoulders and say “that’s life”?

Alan, how do you propose the removal of any and all firearm laws/restrictions to attain your belief in the Second Amendment?

When the founders wrote the Second Amendment the firearms of the day were black powder, single shot, weapons. Are those then the weapons allowed to the people? Plus, many states wrote laws prohibiting slaves from owning/possessing firearms. Were those laws unconstitutional? Whiles slaves were counted as only 3/5th’s of a person for determining representation, they were classified as people. Also, in 1837 the State of Georgia enacted law to prohibit the carrying of small firearms, concealed or openly. In 1845, the Georgia Supreme Court, using the Second Amendment to reach it’s decision, overturned the portion of the law prohibiting the open carrying of a firearm. The Court left intact the portion of the law prohibiting the concealed carrying of a firearm.

I’m seriously interested in hearing your reasoning on each of the questions I have asked. By answers, I don’t mean just the mantra that the Second Amendment prohibits any infringement (laws or restrictions) on the right to keep and bear arms. This is your opportunity (or anyone else’s who is interested) to educate everyone on the Second Amendment. I also encourage people who are pro-gun control to articulate their reasoning as well.

I hopefully await your comments Alan.

Until next time

Dark Ages of the Second Amendment

Conservative lies about the “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I am an owner of firearms, as allowed by law. But, I do not believe the Second Amendment provides the right to unrestricted firearm ownership.

The latest tragedy of a mass shooting, resulting in ten deaths, in Boulder, Colorado, is just another reason of why the lies of the Second Amendment arguments by conservatives need to be put in it’s grave once and for all. Americans are fed untruths by gun proponents and gun “rights” organizations, much as the priests tell parishioners what the Bible says and what they are to believe.

There is nothing in the Second Amendment stating that ANY law pertaining to gun restrictions infringes ownership and is unconstitutional. It is the blindness of regular citizens and the lack of their use of common sense that continues to breath life into this belief. Constitutional “rights” are infringed every day. Freedom of speech in the First Amendment does not give a person the right to scream fire in a darkened theater, the freedom of peaceful assembly does not give the right to block roadways, sidewalks, building entrances, or carrying out the lawful (and constitutional) exercise of government, for example.

Plus, the Second Amendment allows for “infringements” on the right to keep and bear arms. No citizen is allowed any weapon they wish to own. Ergo, owning a bazooka, or a machine gun, or a fully automatic assault rifle without a federal firearms license, or a sawed off shotgun (meaning a barrel length under 18 inches long), or a grenade, are all unlawful. It’s common sense. An individual has no reasonable use for any of these weapons and it is the proper behavior of the state and federal governments to enact laws preventing or restricting their ownership. Conservatives and gun rights groups don’t want you to know this, they want you to listen to their preaching only.

It is reasonable to restrict firearms and their ownership. Even conservatives believe this when it aligns with their political beliefs. I don’t see conservatives fighting to allow gun ownership by people with felony criminal convictions or allowing minors to own firearms. It’s their dual standards that allow firearms to be possessed and used that led to the murder ten innocent people in Boulder and eight innocent people in the Atlanta area, and on and on. Why do any of us need weapons that hold 20 or 30 rounds of ammunition in a rifle magazine, or more than 10 rounds in a pistol magazine? How is restricting magazine capacity an infringement of one’s Second Amendment rights? In fact, if laws prevented the ownership of semi-automatic pistols, that law wouldn’t infringe on your right to own a firearm. Revolvers holding six rounds in the cylinder would be legal to possess to protect yourself or your family. If it takes more than six rounds to stop a threat of death or serious bodily injury then I suggest the user is a bad shot and needs time on the range.

Further, the conservative gun rights folks continuously fight to extend the meaning of Second Amendment rights into other areas, such as the right to carry a handgun concealed without a permit and to carry it anywhere, such as the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives (yes lady, I’m talking about you). Yet, concealed carry laws do exist and haven’t been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Laws are meant to protect the people in a society, not to allow crimes to be committed. Would any law have prevented the mass shootings in Boulder or Atlanta? The answer is no. But, had only a revolver been used, the shooter would need to reload after six shots. This would have given people a chance to flee or even stop the shooters. Reloading a revolver isn’t as fast as changing a pistol or rifle magazine. Oh sure, if the shooter has a revolver quick loader and plenty of practice in reloading a revolver with it then it might not change the outcome. However, the huge majority of people do not have this type of training in sufficient amounts to make them experienced experts. I know this is true since I’ve owned quick loaders for revolvers and did regularly practiced with them.

Yet, the conservative lies on the Second Amendment continue and allow such tragedies to happen. Is it altruism on their part to protect the rights in the U.S. Constitution, or is it money and political power that drives their motivations? Personally, I believe it to be the latter. Politicians want the backing of groups like the NRA and the Gun Owners of America to bring them funding for their campaigns and votes to continue their hold on power. I’ve never liked, nor been a member of, the NRA or any gun rights group. They exist only to attack any attempt at reasonable gun control. If these groups didn’t exist, would the majority of the American people demand more laws restricting gun ownership? I’m betting they would. Every mass shooting says yes, we need laws restricting gun ownership, just as much as we need some laws protecting the right to own a firearm.

Conservatives, especially Republican members of the U.S.Congress and State legislatures, are wrong and are supporting evil by fighting against any gun laws in America. Their actions are self-serving. They care not about the people they serve, just the money and power they can get.

All we can do as reasonable, common sense, people is to give the survivors and families of the mass shootings our condolences for their loss and promise them all that we will fight for reasonable laws, like assault rifle and high capacity magazines bans, universal background checks, and waiting periods to receive purchased firearms to help protect America. It is time conservatives grow up.

Until next time