The Second Amendment Myth: But You Didn't Say I Couldn't

The question remains: what rights do we have when it comes to firearms?

Just because the Second Amendment doesn't implicitly protect an individual's right to posses a slingshot, does that mean we can't have a revolver or even an M60?

My father fought for justice and truth his whole life. He is the greatest example of a libertarian I know. He sacrificed his family, life, career, and spiritual future for what he felt was right. He believed in the rights of the individual. He believed that we didn't need a right to bear Arms. He was of the mindset that if the Constitution didn't expressly prohibit it, it was fair-game. To say he hated the Bill of Rights was an understatement. The very problem with the Bill of Rights is that by expressing them in writing, you limit them to what is written. He felt that all of us had every single right not expressly prohibited by the Constitution and to express any right was to limit that right to a convoluted definition. So according to my old man, unless legal decree or precedence limits the rights of an individual to possess an Abrams tank, one has the right to said vehicle, of course only in light of one being able to lawfully obtain one. And that's the rub.

Even in this current malaise of a Second-Amendment miscue, one does not have the right to an RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade) but one does have the right to an assault-rifle, endless ammo, body armor, and plenty of chemicals to make many bombs of many types. The threat isn't about the instrument but the degree. What level of access to what kinds of weaponry do we, as the People, want to prohibit and permit to whom and why? Do we want to live in a society like Australia where only the police are entrusted with weapons more deadly than a rifles? Are we ready to end this horrific violence and get real? Listen to Australia; they are a wonderful example of getting it right, right after the tragedy. They didn't wait for another. Of course, they didn't have the NRA to deal with either.

Why does the NRA fight this? Why else? Cash. It's pathetic. There is no Constitutional reason why hunters and sportsman cannot enjoy their tiny hand-cannons but the NRA makes their mint pretending the myth is under threat. Laws exist to regulate dangerous situations. Not everyone can simply build a skyscraper. There are permits and certifications required to erect a structure that might collapse on people. And as we regulate the privilege of driving a metal box at speeds and forces capable of creating significant destruction, guns will eventual be regulated to the point they no longer pose this crippling threat. Why? It's Constitutional. My old man constantly reiterated the language's clarity: Militias are a body of the State, not the definition of an individual. 

Second Amendment Myth: The Made Myth

No one hunts with a Ruger or a MAC-10. So what changed the NRA into this toxic advocate for increasing availability of the killing-wand? Manufacturing invaded this loose network of enthusiasts. Today, they insure access by the unwashed-masses to the weapons of mass-murder remains at an insane level. They have become a serious domestic threat to the US by reinforcing this common, Constitutional misconception. Their myth kills people, many suicidal. There is nothing wrong with the idea that not everyone can be entrusted to operate a car, let alone a Desert Eagle.

The Second Amendment is very short and difficult to understand. I had the privilege of a lawyer for a father who argued before a state supreme court. He helped me understand that the phrase, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,' means States have the sovereign right to defend their land by creating a fighting-force, forged from the populace without interference from the Federal Government. So far, it doesn't appear any State's right to create said Militia has been infringed upon in any way, shape, or form. The National Guard expresses the State's right to a well-regulated Militia. As far as I can see, that particular institution is under no Constitutional threat.

My father taught me: the idea that the Founders intended access to military-style weapons by the Citizenry is ridiculous. Unless you're an active member of (let me say this again) the State's well-regulated Militia, the only thing the Founders had in mind was the basic idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (originally property, as in the right to own what you create). If you needed to hunt in order to eat and make a living, by all means, use the tool of the rifle. If you feel threatened, there are many measures short of a semi-automatic. One has the right to privacy and protection but one has no Constitutional Right to a Glock-19.

On the other hand, no on has a Constitutional Right to a Ferrari either but some of us have one because some of us can. So get over it. You, mister or lady American, have no Constitutional Right to a device, capable of launching a projectile beyond the speed of sound into any unsuspecting, darling, little girl anymore than anyone has the right to rip rubber in a fine machine. The Supreme Court has often got the big issues wrong before it gets them right. My father's words are clear: the myth of an individual’s Constitutional Right to bear Arms will fade with passing generations.

Second Amendment Myth: The Myth Maker

The individual right of the Second Amendment Myth spawns from a single, deadly, resourceful, political source: the river of funding that is the NRA. It has misconstrued the meaning by chopping off the first thirteen words, leaving the final fourteen,

'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

Originally, the NRA (National Rifle Association) existed to raise awareness of gun safety and general sportsmanship among the common folk. It's not the NGA (Gun) or the NWA (Weapon) for a reason. We're talking rifles. It started with a bunch of concerned hunters. They'd teach some basic skills to the uneducated masses, tramping a noisy, messy path through their prized, pristine forests. The seed of their intention was the simple notion of not getting shot by some idiot, recklessly sporting their first rifle. The NRA was a grassroots, educational program sponsored by real people. Why was the NRA created? Because rifles are deadly in the hands of the ignorant.

They were once safety advocates; but now?

The most powerful industry lobby in the world;

they own the GOP;

they're a cooperation

with the proverbial finger on the trigger.

And they keep pulling it.

Ironically the hero of the GOP, Ronald Reagan, was a victim of this very instrument, lying at the base of this party's foundation. A member of the GOP cannot hold office without a favorable NRA rating. This lobby has twisted the fundamental right of self-preservation into the Constitutional Right of a Militia. People don't have the right to carry a gun because the NRA or the Second Amendment says so. People have the right to carry a gun because the States decide they will allow the Citizenry to arm themselves with guns because guns are an effective tool. But are they always useful? Statistically, they do more harm than good. It's hypocritical that pro-life people so often support death with such fervor. Fact: no Citizen has the right to bear Arms; Arms are for armies.

There is no Constitutional prohibition of acquiring the implements to protect one's family. The government's not coming for your guns. No one's saying you can't have an alarm-system or even a shotgun. The sacrosanct boarder of the household is a Constitutional Right. This amendment addresses the sacrosanct boarder of the State. But neither the NRA nor the individual has the right to decide AK-47s are on the list of approved weaponry; only States do. Why not a claymore or a sound-cannon? There's a line. As a society, we must face the limits of access. Surly, no one believes I have a the right to an Apache helicopter. We must answer the question: what is reasonable? Do we the People set terms or will we still stomach NRA profits leading our way? If the GOP cannot take the initiative to return the NRA to it's roots, eventually the rising death-toll will.

We will change.

The only remaining question:

How many of us must die to make it so?