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.
