Words Have Meaning….

Ok, given the ongoing debate regarding gun control, I’m going to repost a response I just gave for the following contrarian post: “the language of the 2D does not mention firearms.”

You are absolutely right.  It doesn’t mention any SPECIFIC weapon.  It simply says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…”

The word, Arms, btw, is spelled with a capital A in the original text.

Arms.

Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published in 1755. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

Cambridge Dictionary: “weapons and explosives used in fighting wars”

Merriam and Webster: “a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense, especially : FIREARM”

Oxford dictionary: “weapons and ammunition; armaments.”

MacMillan Dictionary: “weapons, for example guns or bombs”

BTW, the word, arms, is short for the word, armaments.

Definition for the word, armaments.

Oxford Dictionary: “military weapons and equipment.”

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary: “Weapons, arms”

Cambridge Dictionary: “weapons or military equipment”

Notice anything?  Contrary to current definitions, the word, Arms, as used in the Second Amendment, refers specifically to MILITARY WEAPONS owned by and in the hands of PRIVATE CITIZENS.

“…Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people," Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

BTW, this destroys Biden’s continuing lie that the Second Amendment placed limitations on the kinds of weapons that can be owned by civilians.

The Agenda Over All….

 If this doesn’t speak to the agenda, I don’t know what does: “‘They want to view the signatures to make sure they’re legal before turning them into the state,’ volunteer Barbra Reinoehl said.”

To what does this refer?

This quote is from a WOOD TV report regarding the signature drive being conducted in Michigan to put abortion on the ballot in November.  They’re taking special care to ensure that the signatures are valid.

But employing such measures to ensure that signatures on ballots during elections are valid is an infringement and burden.

And ensuring that the signatures on the forms for the top three contenders for the repub primary were valid was a bother.  In fact, the signature gatherers COUNTERFEITED signatures, resulting in the elimination of these candidates and ensuring that Gov. Whitmer would be running against weaker candidates.

I guess whether validating signatures is a burden and infringement depends on the agenda….

An Open Letter To Senators Peters, Stabenow….

 And any other legislator that needs to hear this.

Senators,

Here’s a novel idea: instead of splitting hairs about what constitutes a boyfriend or intimate partner, why don’t we simplify things? 

If you have ever been the subject of a restraining order due to violence, regardless of your relationship to the individual who filed for it, you are prohibited from purchasing a firearm until  your record has been expunged and you can provide documentation of the successful completion of required treatment.  Failing that, you are a prohibited individual. Is that simple enough? 

And while we’re at it, eliminate the three business day provision (this is NOT A LOOPHOLE, it is an explicit provision) in the Brady Act.  Again, make it simple.  Until the NICS system gives a Proceed, a firearm may not be transferred.  Is THAT simple enough?

I am sick and tired of the hair splitting that goes on.  These two suggested provisions are as simple as they come.

Now get it done.

A Response To Matthew McConaughey….

I appreciate the thoughtful way you presented your ideas regarding a responsible approach to firearms safety.

I am a former federal officer, a firearm salesperson for one of the nation’s largest FFLs, a father of two sons, the husband of a middle school teacher, and a lawful, law-abiding firearms owner.

I would like to respond to some of the ideas that you presented - and present an idea that you DIDN’T address.

First, dealing with a sensationalized media is NOT a long term problem, it is, in fact, a driving factor in mass shootings that can and MUST be addressed immediately.  The infamy achieved by these shooters is documented to be one of the goals of many mass shooters, their way to achieve notoriety and some form of immortality.  A media that sensationalizes and rationalizes coverage of mass shooting events in the name of “the public right to know” is at the foundation of the uptick in mass shootings.  This is easily solved by adopting an approach to reporting such events that minimizes: they are reported factually and without editorializing, they are covered as any other crime, and the attacker’s identity is minimized - in contrast to the almost celebrity manner in which they are covered now, with every detail of their lives being put on display.

Sensationalized media also leads to the misconception to which you gave publicity: the AR-15 is NOT the “weapon of choice” for mass shooters.  That is a notion driven by a media intent on 1) sensationalizing mass shooter events and 2) pushing an agenda favored by liberal politicians to vilify and eventually ban scary looking black guns.  According to Amnesty International, mass shootings comprise less than 1% of all deaths involving firearms.  According to the National Institutes for Justice, fewer than 1% of ALL shootings taking place in the US involve a rifle of any kind; shootings utilizing so-called “assault rifles” comprise a fraction of that single percentage point.  The weapon of choice in 77% of mass shootings is, in fact, the humble and ubiquitous semi automatic handgun.  But because of the sensationalized media coverage you correctly identified as part of the problem, you and many others have bought into the notion that modern sporting rifles are the weapons of choice.  To that point, neither a minimum age of 21 to purchase a handgun from an FFL nor mandatory waiting periods in several states have stopped underage or adult mass shooters from acquiring handguns; why do you assume such a limitation will have a different effect on the acquisition of AR-15s?

Second, I DO believe that so-called “red flag” laws have some validity.  

I do believe there are some people who shouldn't have firearms.  As a firearms salesman I have stopped a number of transactions over the years because I believed safety would be at risk if I allowed the transaction to proceed.

I believe certain, well-defined individuals should have the right to petition the courts to remove firearms from individuals when they truly pose a risk to themselves and those around them; I DON'T believe this provision should be accorded to everyone who gets a hair crosswise or simply has a bias against firearms.  THAT is the danger inherent in such a provision, and in my years as a firearms salesman, I have witnessed just such attempts.

I will get behind this provision IF - and that's a ****HUGE**** if - DUE PROCESS RIGHTS ARE GUARANTEED.

Contrary to what Donald Trump said while he was still in office, due process rights come FIRST.  We don't take the firearms early and worry about due process later.

The Fourth Amendment still states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, and no Warrants shall issue, ***but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized***", EMPHASIS ADDED.

The Fifth Amendment likewise still states, "No person shall...  be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law...", all caps added.

These aren't suggestions, they are CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS.

GUARANTEE that those CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS will be honored TO THE LETTER and I will get behind this provision.

Third, it is an established fact that 77% of mass shooters acquired their firearms from FFLs LEGALLY, meaning that they passed background checks to get them.  In some few instances, the shooter was able to take advantage of the PROVISION - NOT a loophole - in the Brady Act that allows for the transfer of a firearm after three business days in the absence of a final determination from the NICS system.  The distinction between loophole and provision is not merely semantic, it is substantial.  A provision is a consideration explicitly written into the verbiage of a law.  A loophole, by definition, is a gray area in a law: an area of ambiguity of verbiage or an omission that may be manipulated.  I AM in favor of eliminating the three day provision currently existing in the Brady Act to mandate that a firearm transfer may not take place unless and until the NICS system delivers a determination.

Further, before enacting so-called “universal” background checks, fix the current system.  Report after report in the aftermath of mass shootings reveal numerous prior interviews with law enforcement due to reported concerns, psychological evaluations, reported concerns from school officials, even military  service-related failures to report incidents of domestic violence and other mental and behavioral issues, etc.  All of these things are already required by law to be entered into the NICS background check system - but in many instances, they aren’t, and there are seemingly no efforts to rectify this.  As 77% of firearms used in mass shootings were obtained after passing a background check, this one fix alone would prevent many mass shooters from acquiring their firearms.  And for the record, the existence of HIPAA laws has ZERO bearing on this: an exception to HIPAA to allow reporting of medically significant concerns into the NICS system was engineered into the law.  In other words, ENFORCE the laws we already have on the books.  Stop allowing states to pick and choose what data they will report.  And stop allowing criminals to plead out of weapons charges. What’s the use having the laws - or creating new ones - if they aren’t enforced?

Finally, there is one other action that must be taken immediately to address mass shootings - but you aren’t likely to support it.  Immediately repeal the federal Gun Free School Zones Act.

For over thirty years an experiment has been conducted on the American public, and that experiment involves testing the notion that criminals obey laws, that declaring a given area “gun free” somehow appeals to the “inherent goodness” that supposedly exists in all people.  After thirty years, the results speak for themselves: “gun free” zones, whether they be schools, malls, churches, hospitals, or federal buildings, have protected no one and prevented nothing, but they have proven to provide shooters with unlimited sources of defenseless victims.  “Gun free” zones have proven to all who have eyes to see that criminals do not obey laws or designations, that they will, in fact, use those very laws and designations to their advantage.

That this is the case is hardly a new revelation.  The eighteenth century criminologist, Cesare Bonesana, Marchese Beccaria, recognized this fact in  1764:

“The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons,” emphasis added.

This realization is echoed by Thomas Paine in his Thoughts on Defensive War:

“…The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation [or criminal - added] refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”

Even the left-leaning think tank, the Rand Corp., posted this statement to their website regarding the effect of “gun free” zones:

“… [I]f the presence or potential presence of armed civilians deters violence, gun-free zones could serve as more-attractive targets to violent criminals or mass shooters because perpetrators will be less likely to encounter armed resistance in these areas.”

There is a saying: rendering the innocent defenseless does not make them safe.  The corollary to that saying is: rendering the innocent defenseless does not make criminals less dangerous.  Thirty years of experimenting with so-called “gun free” zones have affirmed the veracity of this saying.  A study of active shooter events by security experts experts found that such individuals seek out “gun free” zones. The fact is, criminals do not typically attack targets with low probabilities of success, which is why they don’t attack gun shows, gun dealerships, and most banks.

Eliminate “gun free” zones - IMMEDIATELY.

I also believe in responsible firearms ownership.  I am trained, I continue to train, and any firearms that I am not actually carrying are secured - not because I fear my sons getting their hands on them, but as a safeguard in case someone breaks into my home, to make it more difficult for a criminal to steal my firearms.

But RESPONSIBLE firearms ownership is also INFORMED ownership.

Meaning no disrespect, you need to become better informed.

The Continuing Need For The Militia In The USA….

More and more I am seeing letters to the editor expressing the opinion that, because we have a standing military, we no longer need the militia.  Such opinions demonstrate the ignorance of our history that has become so rampant in this country.

As the writings of many of the Founders evidence, the militia was stood up and specifically protected by the Constitution as a direct response to the decision to implement a standing army.  The Founders were split on the need for a standing army, with some siding with George Washington, who argued for a standing army, and others siding with Hamilton, who, based on his understanding of European history, indeed, WORLD history, understood that a standing army is ALWAYS, eventually used against the citizens it was intended to protect, opposed a standing army.

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist," Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788.

“To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them," George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops," Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787.

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of," James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country," James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them," Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun," Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778.

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction," St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803.

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms," Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788.

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them," Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833.

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins," Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789.

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair," Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28.

Finally, to address the lie that the president continues to tell, that the Second Amendment limits the weapons that may be owned by citizens,

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms," Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people," Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, emphasis added.

The militia exists to act as a firewall against a standing military acting on the orders of a government run amok; a war on the citizens of the United States is the one war the United States Military hopes never to wage.

And lest you buy into the delusion enunciated by the president that, "If you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons," I provide the following list:

• Afghanistan (Soviet Union and United States)
• Vietnam (France and United States)
• England (colonial militia and Continental Army)

These are just a few of the more notable historical instances in which badly outgunned groups went up against vastly superior forces armed with the latest in weapons - and won.

The militia exists because the Founders deemed it to be necessary - and it remains necessary.

Raising The Age….

If they’re going to raise the minimum age to purchase a long gun to 21, then they also need to raise the age to enlist in the military.

It’s amazing that it doesn’t seem to have occurred to anyone that mandating a minimum age of 21 to get a handgun hasn’t stopped all those underage gangbangers from getting their hands on them any more than a minimum age to obtain alcohol has kept teens from procuring it.

Yeah, I know: “But if we can stop JUST ONE….”