David Conte was one of our speakers last Saturday morning at our monthly meeting, and he shared with us his experiences and discussions he’s had with recruiting for the NRA with debating the gun question. For the last number of years, any incident with a gun has been grouped into a category of “gun violence” to which the only solution is gun restrictions. Of course, this is the argument by those on the left and mindlessly repeated on the mainstream news. Last week’s sit-in by Democrat members of the House of Representatives is only the latest effort by those on the left to force this issue into debate. So let’s debate it.
The 2nd Amendment IS NOT About The Gun
The terms assault rifle and assault weapon have been thrown around so often that it’s become the language of anything bad. Even the intermediate-level gun user could tell you specific differences between the different rifles and guns, but we have Congressmen and advocates who carelessly use these terms incorrectly and they go unchallenged. There is an Orwellian manipulation of language where if you make an association often enough, it will become true.
When the left decide to wade into the language of the Constitution, they usually state that the Founders couldn’t have been thinking of an AR-15 when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. They may also go into a hunting argument and ask why a person needs a semi-automatic weapon to shoot a turkey.
At this point, we need to stop the argument and state that the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting and it’s not even about the guns. Is the 1st Amendment about the internet? People use the internet to express their thoughts and ideas, and are utilizing their protected right to free speech. Is the 4th Amendment about text messages? If I wrote a note with paper and pencil and gave it to a person, the police would need a warrant to search the person’s personal property. If I send that person a text message, that message is not considered the property of either my friend or myself but property of my phone carrier. Is that what the Founders had in mind?
The 2nd Amendment IS About People
Remembering the history of the Bill of Rights, the Federalists didn’t even want a Bill of Rights because they thought it would be redundant. The danger of putting down our Natural Rights on paper, some thought, is that they could be misconstrued at a later time. By writing down our Natural Rights as a way of preventing the government from infringing on those rights, we may also be giving permission to future Congresses, Presidents, and Supreme Courts to alter the language and the meanings these ideas.
So even before the 2nd Amendment, the original Federalists might point to the Declaration of Independence and say that we have a right to life and property. Therefore, we have a right to protect our life and property. And finally therefore, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The thing about Natural Rights is that they do not change with time or with technology. If we are to live in relative freedom, then the police and law enforcement cannot be everywhere at all times. If there is a crime being done against my person or my property, I have a right to protect myself.
When the left sees a gun crime like a mass shooting, they think that stopping the gun will stop the crime. People on the right aren’t for simple vigilante justice, but we do recognize that a good person with a gun can stop a bad person with a gun even though it doesn’t make the 24/7 news cycle.