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. (The Second Amendment, The Constitution)
In the years before the American Revolution, British rule stated that only Protestants could keep arms for self-protection (Regan Library). In the quickly coalescing United States, those early State governors and representatives realized that We The People required arms in order to protect ourselves, both at a personal level and as a country, and that denying arms to a subset of people (those not Protestant, for instance, and a few years later, Black people) was a bad idea. Either the Right was going to be infringed, or it wasn’t. Our Founding Fathers decided that not infringing was the correct way to go.
I happen to agree with them.
I am an absolutist when it comes to the Second Amendment. It is wrong, 100% wrong, to infringe on the right of someone to keep and bear arms. Anyone. Even Leftists. Even criminals, in fact, though I still struggle with this one (as an aside, if a criminal is too dangerous to be allowed to have their firearms, then they ought not be out of jail). You want to own a rail gun? Sure. You want to have a nuclear missile in your backyard? Fine. You just have to follow all the laws surrounding the owning of those things (for instance, if you have nuclear weapons, you have to have adequate, safe storage for them so that you don’t poison your land or your neighbors). It’s permissible, to a small extent, to limit certain things when it can inherently damage other people (as with nuclear weapons). The Founders were clear: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
The moment you start saying, “Oh, but I don’t want *that* person to have guns…” you’ve lost. You’re now on the Left, and you’ll be issued your blue hair dye and have your septum ring installed momentarily. And yes, this IS a hill I will die on.
“One primary motivation for the Second Amendment was the fear of federal tyrannical power. Many Founders believed that governments naturally tend toward oppression, and that an armed citizenry served as a crucial check against government overreach. This reasoning reflected the Revolutionary experience of fighting against what was perceived as British tyranny.” (Vanho Law)
People on the Right have long talked about the concern of the tyranny of the government. When Biden was in office, I heard it every other day. I heard it almost as often when Obama was in office. Valid concerns were voiced, and while I didn’t agree with all of them, I did listen. At that time, the Left thought the Right were a bunch of nutters.
Right now, people on the Left are concerned about tyranny of the government. They are in a complete and utter froth over Trump, ICE, and DHS. I hear this several times every day. I’m strongly of the opinion that most of the concerns voiced are bull… but even when I don’t agree with them, I listen. And now the Right thinks the Left are a bunch of nutters.
Is it scary to me that people who might be my enemies are arming themselves? Yes it is. But here’s the thing… freedom is not free. It’s not safe. It’s not easy. If you think anything about freedom is safe or easy or free, you obviously have not read your history books. Go read them, and then you may come back and comment.
It doesn’t matter if I’m scared or nervous or freaked out that the left may be arming themselves. In the same vein, I have been telling the left that for years, that the fact that I’m arming myself or my husband is arming himself or whatever is none of their business and it doesn’t matter if they’re freaked out or scared. It’s my right, I get to exercise it, and if you want to be upset over it, you are absolutely welcome to be but you’re not going to stop me exercising that right.
There is no possible way for me to say that to the left and then turn around and tell them that my piddly little fears or my gutty terrors are a reason for them not to be allowed to have firearms. I refuse to be a hypocrite. I refuse to be unethical, or situational. My ethics and my morals stand, no matter who they are aimed at. I believe the same things have to apply to everyone, and if there are laws and rules and regulations that don’t apply to everybody equally, then they should be removed. You can’t have rules for me but not for thee.
To bring this to a close, I strongly believe that people who jump through the hoops to get their firearms and the training, and maybe their CC paperwork, will become good and ethical 2A people. Eventually. I believe it is functionally impossible for someone to be a firearm owner, do training and practice, and not become a 2A supporter. In my albeit limited experience, everyone I know who has gone on to learn how to safely and properly use their firearms, has realized the stupidity of the gun control crowd.
Let the left arm themselves if that’s what they feel they need to do. If I’m scared, then I’m scared. That has nothing to do with their rights. Just as I tell them that their feelings have nothing to do with limiting my rights, I have to give them the same in return.
If you’re all for taking away the rights of your enemies, or restricting their access to certain things, whether that’s free speech, firearms and self-defense items, information, etc… then you are the Gestapo that they have been afraid of.
This is important stuff. You are all welcome to believe however you want, because I believe in the first amendment as well as the second. You have the freedom to believe what you want, think I’m an idiot, and anything else. But so do I.
I will protect your right to be afraid of the left being armed, to talk openly about that fear, and to brainstorm ways ways to be safe. But the moment you step out of line and start trying to take away the rights of others to speak freely, to keep and bear arms, you’re no better than you’re saying they are. I’ll still protect your right to say what you want, but I’m not going to protect you from the consequences of your statements.
I have often said both here on the blog and in other places that only in the crazy world that we live in right now, could I be considered conservative. In a sane world I would be slightly right of center of the liberal side, and I don’t have a problem with that. But in writing this missive and in interactions recently, I think I might be a bit more conservative than some of you give me credence for. Because I will say it clearly, it is a conservative value to refuse to use the government to take away the rights of someone else. And that’s where I stand.
What you post about is the prime reason for people learning to exercise reason and understanding. I agree 100%.
It is my sincere hope that all those who choose to exercise their 2A rights do so responsibly. I believe, very strongly, that those who do exercise their rights do better at understanding what those rights are, how they’re protected, and why they’re important. They also seem to quickly learn the responsibilities that go along with the rights.
.
People in Minnesota right now think they are exercising their 1A rights. They are not. The First Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Those who are protesting MAY be within their 1A protected rights, or they may not, depending on how peaceable the are being. The important words here are that CONGRESS will not make a law that stops people from assembling peacefully, or stops them from asking their government to fix problems (my paraphrase). I happen to think that protesting is okay, provided you aren’t blocking streets or businesses, or harassing people, or obstructing LEOs from going about their business… but it isn’t a 1A protected right. Until the Minnesotans start petitioning their government to do things (both locally and at the Federal level), they are outside of 1A protected rights.
.
And this is one of the reasons we need to press the understanding of these rights into the public. Because I really do not believe that the current batch of protesters have a clue that their protests and riots aren’t “protected speech.” No one taught them that at school, and their elected officials are lying to them and urging them to continue. *sigh*
You said that you believe it’s impossible for a firearms owner not to become a 2A supporter. Are there hunters who think that the 2nd Amendment is just there to protect hunters, and doesn’t protect the right to armed self defense or to carry a concealed weapon? I have not met any but I’m told they exist; they even have a nickname (Fudds).
On the issue of people “on the other side” getting armed, I agree with you. And I point at L. Neil Smith’s “no initiation of force” principle. Self defense is reactive — it stops force applied against the intended victim. Initiation of force — using a weapon against a person who has taken no violent action — is not self defense.
Anti-gun people often like to claim that as soon as unfavored group X starts to arm up, gun owners will stop supporting the 2nd Amendment and start supporting gun bans. Typically, that group X is one that anti-gun people don’t like though they work hard to hide that bigotry.
pkoning: I hear that there’s a nickname… that doesn’t mean it’s real. I can’t tell you how many times lately I’ve been called nazi, bigot, homophobe, etc. That doesn’t make me one. Are there a handful of hunters that aren’t 2A supporters? Sure. There are *always* going to be outliers. There are always going to be dissenters. That’s the nature of our democratic republic. That’s the nature of human civilization. What I said was, “I believe it is functionally impossible for someone to be a firearm owner, do training and practice, and not become a 2A supporter.” There are three parts to that “functionally impossible” statement: ownership, training, and practice. Sure, there are going to be the handful who ignore reality. I don’t care about zebras; I’m looking for horses. 🙂
.
I have been watching the Left lose it’s communal mind over 2A folks (like myself, like Chris, like other friends of mine) standing up and saying Noem was WRONG. Patel was WRONG. And Trump was WRONG. I can still support Trump and what he’s doing, still think Kash was a pretty good pick for FBI, and still think Noem’s 2A flaws are minor enough that I think she can redeem herself on other fronts… and think they were all wrong for saying Pretti shouldn’t have brought a firearm to a protest.
.
Actually, I take that back, sort of. Pretti himself perhaps should not have brought that firearm with him. His intent was to agitate, and agitation and firearms don’t mix (obviously). **PEOPLE** have the right to bring a firearm to a protest, however. Even Pretti. No one is immune to the consequences of their actions, however, and Pretti found that out the hard way.
.
Regardless, the Left has no understanding (as a whole… there are individuals who “get it”) how we can decry Trump, Noem, and Patel for their statements on 2A, but still support them as leaders. They can’t understand why we aren’t demanding someone, anyone be disarmed. They “get” Trump saying Pretti shouldn’t have had a gun there. That makes sense to them. The rest of us saying BULLSHIT, that confuses the Left. A lot. Near as I can tell from where I sit, they aren’t even in a froth over it. They’re just confused and floundering. We were apparently supposed to demand disarming the Left because the Left brought a gun to a gunfight. Instead, they got, “Well, Pretti made a mistake and paid the ultimate price, but HE HAD THE RIGHT to carry.”
The Bill of Rights recognizes that humans have fundamental human rights solely because they are human. Those rights include a right to self defense against threats, both political and personal, as well as fundamental rights to privacy (4th), to express an opinion (1st), to recompense for the loss of property (5th), to avoid cruel and unusual punishments (8th), etc…
The Bill of Rights restricts the Federal Government from infringing on any of those rights.
.
And, the left is adamant that the 1st never gets restricted in any way. To them, it is absolute, and any form of expression, including some violent acts (burning the US flag springs to mind) are considered part of free speech. But, the 2nd? Applies only to muskets apparently.
.
What is the difference? Power.
By controlling the narrative, the left can control the population. An armed population is a threat to that control.
.
Final note: I am with you on the 2nd. I do not see why an individual cannot own nuclear weapons (yes, I am making an argument to the absurd, I know), as long as they can own and use that nuclear weapon in a law abiding and responsible manner. Be a responsible adult, and I do not care what you own.