In the course of human rights, what right could be more basic than the inherent right of self-defense ? This is the most inherent, the most salient right of a free people as well as a basic tenet of survival. The right of a father to protect himself and his family; the right of a mother to protect herself and her children against threats–whatever they be. And when the rubber meets the road–and there is an external or organized threat–that a person, a family unit, neighborhood, or community can meet the threat and is well equipped and trained to do so.
Those who framed our republic were not shy on the issue:
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
“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
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
-George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12 1776
And that brilliant writer Thomas Jefferson distills the mindset perfectly:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
“Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks…While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind.”
Meaning that by being proficient in arms (and by being armed with the tools of ones’ self defense), it develops a mindset of fierce independence, self-reliance, and self-determination–a mindset far more important than the firearm itself which is simply a tool. That might be why miscreants hate the concept; while welcoming help from neighbors and official law enforcement (LE) agencies, the armed citizen doesn’t need permission to exercise inalienable natural rights. He or she views basic human rights as a RIGHT granted by the Almighty and not a gift from the state. He or she doesn’t NEED permission to carry arms or to exercise these rights (any more than he’d need ‘permission’ to go to church). Nor can the state effectively truncate them. It’s freedom from fear; fears statists use to enslave people (there’s ALWAYS some boogeyman out there that so-called ‘progressives’ like to capitalize on–often shifting both the boogeyman and his goalposts). While an armed citizen may not be able to thwart all threats, at least he or she has a fighting chance and the tools to individually deal with the situation as the first responder on scene. While security is layered (and environmental factors are important) the armed citizen knows he or she can deal with whatever life throws at them. And doesn’t need some protection racket of meaningless words on paper promising something miscreants can never deliver by attempting to defang the good guys.
“Shall” is one of the stronger words–often used in contractural language on which clients ask us to consult. It is clear and unambiguous. So it’s clear what the Second Amendment means: “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 first part of the amendment gives the rationale, the second part affirms the inherent right. As George Mason (and other founders) stated, this did NOT mean that the then-central government wanted a large standing (state sponsored) Army–quite the opposite (the founders viewed the citizens as forming a militia which could oppose a standing army–whether that be foreign or domestic–would an imposed or overreaching central government lean towards tyranny)–the citizens of the newly born Republic WERE (and are) the militia which prevents truncation by an oppressive government of natural inalienable rights. It’s the final safety valve against tyranny, and the Amendment which effectively provides for enforcement of all the others. “Well-Regulated” meaning well equipped and well trained; effectively affirming that ALL citizens of a free state are RESPONSIBLE not only for keeping and bearing arms, but in their maintenance and proficient use.
During the battle of Cowpens, Daniel Morgan used the militia very effectively. Although a bit of a drunken carouser from time to time, Morgan was a brilliant tactician. He knew the militia was relatively untrained, less than perfectly disciplined, and may well break ranks and run. He asked for three volleys and then they could head home to make up any story they wanted to impress their wives, mistresses, girlfriends, or all 3. Truth be told most of them didn’t make the full 3 volleys before they bolted–but their role was as a screening force to sucker the arrogant Banastre Tarelton head on into Morgan’s kill zone. When the militia bolted, Tarleton did indeed get suckered in; the battle evolving into a classic double envelopment (something golden as these types of opportunities seldom occur in any battle anywhere) as Tarleton hit the wall of fire. Then the militia — seeing that they were about to win one — pitched back in and attacked from the flank. Thoroughly routed, Tarleton left the engagement with his tail between his legs. And milita (organized and not) have been successfully used throughout history to confound much more capable forces (witness the ongoing war in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.). In fact, OUR entire Federal armed forces couldn’t hold an area like Pennsylvania if the residents were armed and didn’t want them there. So there is obvious validation TO the wisdom of the Second Amendment, it’s inherent effectiveness, and its obvious human right.
Yet this right HAS been infringed, and there is a never ending attack upon it. People tout ‘background checks, ‘red flag’ nonsense, ‘weapon of war’ propaganda, ‘assault rifle’ misnomers, etc. Interestingly enough, prior to 1968 (other than in some states) there WERE no paperwork requirements for handgun or rifle purchase or possession, no background checks (until the 90’s), and prior to 1968 rifles and handguns actually could be purchased through the mail (we hear much rhetoric about ‘internet sales’ but these are falsehoods–every interstate internet purchase is required to go through an FFL and it is NOT possible to do these transactions without doing the full transfer including the NICS check). And we’re not better for it–if anything these tens of thousands of new gun laws have simply made things worse; we’ve piled law on top of law assuming some murdering criminal will follow the law. And someone always falls through the cracks; the more regulation that’s enacted the worse it gets. All on something clearly not allowed to be infringed upon; doing a background check or filling out an ATF form 4473 to buy a gun is as unconstitutional as requiring someone to register to go to church or have a license to type these very words on this page. In some states citizens are required to get permits to legally carry a gun–concealed or otherwise; something that’s obviously unconstitutional. Some states require a permit to simply BUY a gun–again wholly and clearly unconstitutional.
We hear the same tired rhetoric from communists; namely that the 2A was written in times of flintlocks and it’s somehow ‘reasonable’ to attempt to restrict access to guns. Or that there’s some distinction between a ‘nice’ looking rifle like a Mini-14 or Garand and an AR-15M4 or an AK. It’s an attempt to shift the argument and dilute the right; a meaningless argument. The 1A protects not only ink and quill, but later Smith-Corona and the computer this is being typed on–and the 4A protects not only ‘papers and personal effects’ but also the digital medium one might possess. That’s the beauty of the constitution; it affirms basic rights as technology changes. Bloodletting is no longer a common medical practice; as typewriter technology and medical technology has evolved so has firearms technology. Such that the AR-15 is the modern version of the Pennsylvania Longrifle.
In fact, the AR is THE most common patrol rifle used by LE in our nation. Before that, Mini-14s and M1 carbines were popular. If the cops get it the citizens get it too. The concept of relative parity–between citizen and state forces–still very much exists. Here at D-J, it baffles us that some individuals would accept police forces having access to weapons the regular citizenry doesn’t (or vice versa). Not only is that a logically untenable situation but also it violates every principle of freedom and equality. Nor is there any reason to believe a LEO is inherently better trained than a conscientious citizen (or by virtue of position gets access to ‘special stuff’); they simply are civilians performing a different role.
Gun control got its start in racism. The horrible Dred Scott decision was made largely because the SCOTUS at the time was uncomfortable that the then-coloreds could legitimately be armed if slaves weren’t declared as property. That coloreds would be able to arm themselves meant that they truly WOULD be equal–equal as citizens and free men–and able to enforce this equality with force if necessary. That they could not be made to be subservient to their masters. Following the Civil War some states–still resisting the 14th Amendment and equality of ALL Americans, adopted a ‘may issue’ type of system for permitting firearms–especially for carry. It was a ‘good old boy’ system where racists and other miscreants could single out groups of people NOT to issue these ‘permits’ to. Effectively trying to disarm negroes, Chinese, Irish, organizing labor forces, and anyone else that those in power didn’t want equal. And not only did Southern states do this but also states like New York and California led the pack.
Which brings us back to the recent SCOTUS decision–that people do indeed have the right to keep and bear arms. Effectively reversing the racist and ‘elite class’ mentality of those miscreants (at least in this particular case before the court) in charge of running the state of NY and NYC. That yes–we are all equal and no one is more equal than anyone else. While politicians and bigwigs in NY go about armed and/or with an armed security detail, they would scoff at the commoners below who have just as legitimate (and natural) rights to defend themselves. Now they howl about the ‘Wild West’ and ‘blood in the streets’ (something which never happens when the citizenry gets to be armed too–it’s not the tool it’s the behavior) while continuing to attempt to truncate this basic right. There IS no ‘common sense’ gun control; not only is gun control racist (or if you prefer elitist–they’re both the same thing) but also unconstitutional and wholly ineffective. It is NOT something a free people tolerate. We are very grateful for Justice Thomas’ thoughtful opinion and glad that SOMEONE respects our Constitution. We only hope that this decision goes ‘far enough’ to stop the communists from attempting to further truncate firearms rights, as well as restoring completely free firearms acquisition and carry to the former ‘slave’ states like NY, NJ, MD, and CA.
This is one of the reasons we at D-J use the ‘gun control’ test as a barometer in measuring whether someone is worth listening to (or for that matter worth having as a client). Those who advocate ‘gun control’ fall into the category of either naively ignorant, willfully ignorant OR malicious miscreant. The naively ignorant we might be able to help; the latter two we unfortunately have to show the door.
Diatomaceous-Johnson 