The recent shootings have stirred up a lot of heated debates on the topic of gun control. I personally wanted to avoid the topic, but the public felt much differently. I don’t like to be at the center of any form of controversy but I feel obligated to state the facts and include some feedback on the topic. The most common question received was why I haven’t stood up for our Second Amendment rights and what was my viewpoint?
Due to changes in language over time, our interpretation of the Second Amendment must be based on definitions dating to the time of its inception. I must first admit, I’ve read the amendment many times, but admittedly did not understand it well enough to speak on the topic. The amendment states: “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.” Here are the key words using definitions of the period. “Regulated” pertains to being trained in the art of, which was refering to fire arm usage. A “militia” is a military comprised of citizens, not pertaining to a state or government military. The “people” was referring to a collective group made up of individuals. Individuals not involved in other forms of military! “Keep” was to possess, own and have immediate access to, “bear” meaning to carry and to have at the ready. “Keep and Bear” were also pertaining to gun possession, concealed or exposed. The Second Amendment was written and adopted to prevent a possible disarmament of Americans in the future. In short, we must remember the American Revolution, in part, was a direct response to the British attempt at disarming our young nation.
I personally believe an opinion formed on first-hand experience tends to be more focused. In 1986 there was a shooting at the school I attended. I was in fourth grade, but was immediately able to form an opinion. My opinion was based on the question, “What would have happened had someone from the school been armed?”
Not surprising to me this is one of the most common questions asked in a response supporting armed protection at schools. Children tend to rapidly arrive at a conclusion based on their life experiences. At that time, mine consisted of fight fire with fire, and don’t take a knife to a gun fight. The gunman at our school was using a semi-automatic pistol. He shot and killed a teacher, then he shot the vice-principal, who lived. He then forced entry into a classroom, this is where my experience in the field becomes useful information.
I’ve personally had semi-automatic weapons malfunction as his did. The ratio I’m able to produce through weapons malfunctions in field use is somewhere around ten-to-one. That meaning for every misfire or jam with all other weapons combined, pump, single action, bolt action or revolver, I have experienced ten functioning issues with semi-automatic guns. I took it upon myself to do a little bit of research, and was surprised at how often malfunctioning semi-automatics prevented additional lives lost. The weapons’ malfunction had by the shooter at our school allowed the teacher and several students to disarm and restrain the assailant. New York State has proposed some of the strictest weapons regulations to date following recent shootings. For the informed, this is confusing considering the 250-plus homicides in 2012 in New York State, only seven were committed using long guns. They didn’t distinguish between shotgun, single shot, pump or semi-auto, rifles; single shot, pump, lever action, bolt action or semi-automatic, so the likelihood of semi-automatic used would most likely be further reduced.
So to law-abiding gun owners, Cuomo’s proposal to ban semi-automatic rifles looks like opportunism in government, and taking advantage of a tragic situation to push gun control agenda.I keep seeing people make statements like, “hunters have nothing to worry about they won’t be affected by such legislation.” I cry WOLF when proposed legislation could make it illegal to possess a semi-automatic shotgun or .22 that could affect small game and water fowlers and bird hunters.
You can compare the recent tragedies to a drunk driver crashing into a bus load of children. It would be ridiculous to ban alcohol and private transportation due to that person’s mistake. We all know what happened during the prohibition. Could you imagine what would happen if we were told we could no longer use our vehicles? Laws such as these only hinder the law -abiding citizen. The fact is, criminals and the insane will never abide by such laws.
My perspective on gun control has been formed through the interpretation and recognition and infringement on our Second Amendment rights. You can find countless quotes taken from Thomas Jefferson that will give anyone attempting to decipher the Second Amendment a new clarity. I believe gun control or regulation is ineffective, and it’s proven by the several tragedies that have taken place while there were bans on the weapons or clips used. I also view legislation pertaining to the law -abiding citizens’ ability to keep and bear arms a direct infringement on our Second Amendment rights. Therefore, I can support nothing that has to do with gun control or a ban on any form of weapon.
Although, the Second Amendment doesn’t mention self-protection or hunting rights, I believe at the time of its inception it was such a part of life, it was considered a God-given right. So, with God being removed from our government, no surprise our Second Amendment rights would be soon to follow. Thin ice should be avoided whether in government or in your every-day life. If not sure of the repercussion,s such a mistake can be devastating. The ice across much of the state has been compromised, so know the facts and make sure to look before you leap!
I thought it would be appropriate to follow with a quote from Thomas Jefferson. “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
Good wishes and stand strong for our Second Amendment rights.