ARE YOU ARMED ?

Notes of Concern

         …Jackson Blair

ARE YOU ARMED?

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.

   -Wikipedia

                     ----------------------------------------

The issue of gun ownership brings out the worst in everyone.

The subject pushes our “hot” buttons.

I know people who are horrified that Americans can actually possess guns in their home. These are people who have witnessed criminal acts and accidents where guns have been deadly.

I am also acquainted with people who anticipate a time when they could be left to their own devices to protect themselves and their family. These are not irrational people or people who want to go out and harm innocent folks.

It is perfectly appropriate for people to have strong feelings on this issue. However, it is also necessary to understand that at this time gun ownership, although regulated, is perfectly permissible under the American Constitution.

Until the Congress chooses to take action against gun ownership, it is the settled law of the land.

Some who obtain guns LEGALLY use them to harm or even kill others. There are even more folks who obtain guns ILLEGALLY.

 Lots of people want guns to be banned, or more completely regulated, or turned in.

When the Founders of our country were considering things important to the maintenance of freedom, they decided that the right to own arms was essential.

Since that decision, neither Congress nor any Supreme Court has changed the thrust of the concern expressed by the Founding Fathers.

I cannot claim to know their motivation. I can claim to know why they might have agreed on this provision.

Just how do you think the colonists could have secured liberty for all if they had not been armed? Does any reasonable person think they would have won the war for independence with pitchforks and other farming implements?

How do you think you can protect your family in the event of a societal breakdown due to terrorism if you are not prepared to do so? When no police are available you are left to your own devices to ensure the safety of your family and your possessions. This has been evident in many countries around the world where the citizenry were faced with lawlessness.

If your government abandons you or turns on the principles you hold dear, how do you think you can oppose them successfully without weapons? What do you do if there is a military coup d’état and you and your neighbors want to restore democracy?

It is true that guns in the hands of the “bad guys” can be very dangerous. My own view is that the proposed changes in gun laws simply remove guns from the “good guys” and leave them in the hands of the “bad guys.”  “Bad guys” never follow the laws. We have no chance of removing guns from “bad guys.” We saw how successful removing “liquor” was during prohibition! People who wanted to drink found their libations and those who provided the booze profited handsomely.

Why would it be different with firearms? It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

I don’t know if I will ever need to take up arms against my government.

But I accept it as a possibility.

I don’t know if I will ever need to protect my family and my home because local law enforcement will not be available to me.

But I accept it as a possibility.

I do not know if I will ever dial “911” and not get an answer.

But I accept it as a possibility.

The current laws in many states require people to complete a course before owning a weapon. They provide for a waiting period before you can actually buy a weapon. They require that your weapon be registered, so that local and state and national governments know who has weapons.

I accept it might be possible to craft new laws that help better ensure weapons are in the hands of people who are trained in how to use them, are registered with the state, and can be used for situations envisioned by the Founding Fathers of our country.

I accept that there are people, many people, with a different view on this.

But in our country, until the Constitution is amended, Americans are legally entitled to guns. And those who choose to own them are simply exercising their rights.

The discourse on this subject would be much more civilized if those opposed to gun ownership in America would talk through their concerns with those who are happy with the law as it stands.

All the hype, sturm und drang, and general pontificating is not going to change anything.

The citizens who own guns own them legally and with the blessing of our government.

Until a majority of the citizens determine that an amendment to the Constitutional protection provided to gun owners should be passed, and are able to convince their representatives, as well as majority of the voters, of the value of their argument, it remains the law of the land that citizens may be armed.

This issue benefits only from calm and rational exploration.

Anything short of that makes any meaningful conversation unlikely.