The Second Amendment: Straight in the Crosshairs!

By Roger Katz

Repeal the Second Amendment
Repeal the Second Amendment
Arbalest Quarrel
Arbalest Quarrel

New York, N.Y. –-(Ammoland.com)- With the latest tragic shooting incident – this one taking place at an obscure community college in Oregon – the  Mainstream Media is, once again, ever again, thrusting the public’s attention onto guns.

Oh, What to do about guns! Well, Carolyn Maloney, Democrat from New York has a plan.

Maloney introduced a bill, back in May of this year: “The Firearm Risk Protection Act.” If this bill were to become law, a person would be required to have liability insurance to purchase a gun or face a $10,000.00 fine. The cost of that insurance would, of course, add to the overall cost of the firearm. But, then, the salient point of Maloney’s bill is to make gun ownership such an onerous, expensive proposition that the American public would be dissuaded from making the purchase of a gun in the first place.

But, suppose a person is willing to tighten his or her belt and expend the money. What, then?

Just imagine: your firearm is stolen by a psychopathic “gangbanger” or a psychotic maniac and that person injures or kills someone, or injures and/or kills several individuals with that weapon. The injured party or parties – or the family or families of individuals killed by the “gangbanger” or maniac – files a lawsuit against you, not the “gangbanger” and not against the maniac, because liability for the injury or death accrues to you and to you alone by virtue of “The Firearm Risk Protection Act;” and, you, after all, are the “deep pocket” through your liability insurance coverage.

Your insurance company does indemnify you, the insured, against the damages claims. And that’s all well and good. But your insurance premiums go up or, worse, insurance coverage is thereafter denied to you altogether as a result of an astronomical payout to the injured party or parties or to the family or families of the parties suffering harm at the hands of the “gangbanger” or maniac. And that isn’t so good. And Maloney doesn’t wish to talk about that possibility. You decide that it is simply too costly to protect yourself and your family with a firearm, or, perhaps, you have no choice in the matter. If you are denied firearm liability insurance coverage, you can no longer lawfully own and possess a firearm.

So, then, what do you do? You decide to invest in a Louisville Slugger. Insurance, fortunately, isn’t required for that. Thank you very much, Carolyn Maloney!

Maloney’s bill, will not, of course, even make its way out of Committee, but it will, for her effort, endear her to those few frightened, lost little lambs who are forever looking to Big Government to protect them from others and, for that matter, who are looking to Big Government to protect them from themselves.

But, apart from Maloney’s bill and other creative attempts concocted by antigun zealots to erode the Second Amendment, there is something more sinister afoot that threatens the Second Amendment directly – something worse than Maloney’s bill, awful as her bill is, even if the bill did gain traction, which it won’t.

As alluded to in the first sentence of this post, the mainstream media has provided wide coverage of the latest “mass shooting.” But, we, would be wrong to dismiss the impact of this latest incident out-of-hand The reason for this is that so-called “mass shootings” are the impetus behind specific kinds of restrictive firearms language that denies firearms’ access to extremely large segments of the American population.

And, the antigun establishment, and President Barack Obama, and Democratic Presidential Candidate, Hillary Clinton, intend to turn this latest incident into a “tipping point” for restrictions on gun possession.

How They Got Their Guns
How They Got Their Guns

The NY Times has pulled out all the stops with the latest incident in Oregon in order to affect the emotions – not the intellect – of its readers. The October 4, 2015 Sunday edition of the newspaper is replete with articles – news accounts and editorials – by such ostensible “luminaries” as Frank Bruni and Nicholas Kristoff, who feel obliged or, perhaps, are asked, to weigh in.

What the NY Times news reports and commentary boils down to is this: since it is difficult if not impossible to ascertain with any degree of certainty who will become a “mass murderer,” the better course of action is to remove firearms from the American citizenry in totality, and in double-quick time.”

We, humans, are, after all, beings of emotion as well as intellect. We react to life’s events emotionally as well as intellectually. Each of us, at one time or another, expresses hope and fear, joy and sadness, compassion and resentment. Sometimes we get angry, or we fall into fits of depression or anxiety. Perhaps we lost a loved one, or a job. Perhaps we express concern – much concern – over the manner in which our Government spends our hard-earned tax dollars. Thus is our human-ness expressed.

The vast majority of us deal with the vicissitudes of life stoically. A few of us do not – apparently cannot.

The NY Times has written a lengthy polemic, posted on line, October 3, 2015, “How They Got Their Guns.” It is curious that no photographs of the individuals who perpetrated the violence are shown – in the digital version of the NY Times Article which, clearly, is expected to receive the largest audience and “most hits.” Instead, the NY Times thrusts large, high gloss, high resolution – almost three-dimensional – graphics of firearms upon us – something that the publisher cannot do cost-effectively in the print version of the paper. The large, high resolution graphics suggest that it is the firearms themselves that are the real sentient actors of the violence, and not the individuals who actually wielded the weapons. But, for all that, our intelligence tells us, contrary to what the NY Times article strongly suggests, that it is individuals, after all, and not inanimate objects, who are the real perpetrators of the violence that occurred.

And, what of those perpetrators? The antigun zealots and fanatics intend that those few poor souls, bereft of mind and spirit, who are the cause of violence, whether committed with guns or with any other implement – in a population of millions of law-abiding, sane, rational gun owners – are to be the measure – the standard – by which our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is to be finely calibrated. But, most Americans do not expect, certainly do not demand, indeed would not ever wish that Government utilize, as the standard of measurement, the lowest common denominator among us upon which the vast majority of us is to be judged and found wanting of the ability to handle firearms responsibly. But, that is exactly what is happening. And, let there be no mistake: the antigun forces through their stooges in the mainstream media have the entirety of the Second Amendment in their sights.

NY Times reviewer, Frank Bruni, in his op-ed, on October 4, 2015, titled, Guns, Campuses and Madness, did not mince words, when he stated: “This is madness. When it comes to guns, we have lost our bearings in this country, allowing misguided chest-thumping about a constitutional amendment penned in an entirely different epoch, under entirely different circumstances, to trump all prudence and decency.”

The Bill of Rights, according to Bruni – who is obviously speaking on behalf of the antigun establishment – has no meaning, no purpose, except in the context of a particular place and a particular time. The Bill of Rights our Bill of Rights – must, consistent with Bruni’s argument, be rewritten, sans any mention of one, particular right pre-existing in Man himself. And, the entirety of our jurisprudence must be reconsidered in light of a new global view of law, as argued by Justice Stephen Breyer in his recently published book, “The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities,” consistent, too, with trade policies, such as the pending, “TPP,” that make mincemeat of our Nation’s laws and of our Constitution.

But, no other Country on the face of this Earth has ever expressed a right to keep and bear arms existent in a Country’s citizenry. So, is the U.S. wrong, and every other Country right? Were our Founders so mistaken to profess to create a Bill of Rights, embracing “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” that was deemed to express a sacred right existent in Man for All Time and not just for a particular epoch?

Is it time to repeal the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as the antigun establishment, both in this Country and abroad, hope for and are strenuously working toward?

And, were that to happen, what becomes of the United States? Would it even be accurate to still call the United States a Free Republic at that point, as that notion was envisioned by our Founders?

About The Arbalest Quarrel
Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

www.arbalestquarrel.com

12 thoughts on “The Second Amendment: Straight in the Crosshairs!

  1. We live in times that the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court no longer obey the laws they are sworn to keep. Then we the people who insist on living free must take back our laws and hold those officials accountable to the oaths they took to defend this constitution. These corrupt politicians fear constitutional loving Americans with our religion and guns because they know we have the power and the right to take back what is ours. Those who read this move out of the shadows and into the light, be heard so that this great country and it’s constitution will die. I refuse to let unhonorable men take from me what God has given us. I will serve God and this country and constitution. I will not be ruled by a Hitler. I would rather die fighting than serve those who seek to keep us in bondage for the “body politic”

    1. J a Leigh, yes, precisely! That is the reason — the true reason — as you have clearly articulated it, why this “Frankenstein’s Monster” that “our” Government has become seeks to remove, in the ensuing months, as many firearms from the hands of the American Public as it feasibly can. Indeed, today, on the Floor of the Senate, the illustrious Charles (“Chuck”) Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, et.al., have called on Americans to write their politicians — to scream, shout, stamp their feet, and pout, like so many petulant children — telling Congress that it should enact more “commonsense” gun laws.” Of course, once the guns have been removed from the American Citizenry, these Charlatans who claim, however falsely, to speak for the vast majority of Americans, will have handed to the Despots — whom it is they really represent — what it is that these shadowy, sinister, abhorrent, amoral creatures truly seek: a Nation of impotent Eunuchs whom they can more easily control and restrain, as they control and restrain in Canada, and in Great Britain, and in Australia — without fear of repercussion. Our Second Amendment is the only mechanism that has, to date, kept these forces of evil at bay. It is the razor’s edge upon which the future direction of our Country and, in fact, the very existence of our Country as a Free Republic — depends.

  2. Just another brain dead liberal. What needs to be done is outlaw all Gun Free Zones, Mass murders don’t happen where law abiding citizens are allowed guns.

  3. Better idea, require all criminals to have a permit 24 hours before they plan on their crime wave.

    Yes, dumb idea just like gun insurance and those dumb ‘No GUNS” signs.

  4. The Second Amendment is not “repealable”. It does not cite a right provided by government; it codifies – as does the remainder of the Bill of rights – the natural rights of free born citizens. Why do you think no other nation in the world has ever had, or now has, anything like it?

    1. 2War Abn Vet, I feel a response is in order. I understand the point you are making. For, as I have said many times, myself, and as you point out yourself, The Second Amendment doesn’t create a right. Rather it is a codification of a right, existent in the People. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right. But, be thankful that the Founders of our Republic did codify that right; for, if they had not done so, can you imagine that We, the People, would have, to this day, access to firearms — relatively unencumbered, in some jurisdictions at least — to the extent that we have access to firearms at all today. Understand, we must be thankful that the antifederalists insisted that a codification of the right to keep and bear arms be made, even as the federalists thought such language, and other language expressing Rights existent in the People, to be unnecessary — grounded on a belief that the enumerated and limited powers of the federal government would be sufficient to contain it and constrain it from usurping powers belonging to us — especially as we see such usurpation of powers in and by the Executive Branch of the federal government in particular. Keep in mind that, even though the powers of the federal government are limited, those powers are still substantial. And, as we see, the federal government has essentially usurped powers that rightfully belong to the People. Now, the Ninth Amendment sets forth, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The federalists believed, clearly wrongly — in light of the amassing of powers by the federal government for itself, today — that language in the Constitution that became the “Ninth Amendment” would be sufficient to thwart a power-hungry federal government bent on assuming ever more powers unto itself, at the expense of the People. Now, assume, for purposes of argument, that “the right of the People to keep and bear arms” was not codified in our Constitution. Can you imagine the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Heller case, opining that an “individual right” to keep and bear arms exists by operation of language in the Ninth Amendment alone? I would daresay, no. The reason is that the U.S. Supreme Court rarely invokes the Ninth Amendment in its decisions and, when it does, it is merely to buttress some other argument. It is indeed unfortunate that the litany of rights and liberties existent in the People was not more extensive and that the Founders of our Republic did not further expound upon and better articulate those rights and liberties — and powers — existent in the People, when drafting the “Bill of Rights. Perhaps, too, it would have been better to include those Rights and Liberties and Powers in the “Articles” rather than in the manner they had — as a “Bill of Rights — which is something more akin to an appendage to our Constitution. Had the Rights and Liberties and Powers of the People been set forth more clearly as supreme over the powers of a federal government, we might very well have avoided the usurpation of powers by the federal government, that clearly do not belong to it, that we see becoming ever more evident, pronounced, and formidable today. Thus, is our Free Republic, rather than the “Heads of State,” on the chopping block.

      1. Your response was cogent and well thought out but please use some paragraph breaks. Nobody likes to read a wall of text.

        I find it interesting that this op-ed was so slanted against the NY Times. I read at least 4 articles today (a few days after the fact) that were posted throughout the week that were very pro-gun rights. I think a lot of the liberal lambasting of differing opinions has gone by the wayside over the last couple years in their online publications.Take a look through https://www.nraila.org/ in their news section. They do a fair job of aggregating the articles from a lot of sources.

        Having said that I have to admit that there is a significant presence in all media of anti-gun rights op-eds. In all fairness, however, they have their rights under the first amendment to express their views and opinions, uneducated, unethical, uninformed, and illogical though the may be in their dissenting views.

        1. Gryyphyn, Thank you for your remarks. It is the purpose of an op-ed to present a particular viewpoint in a discussion. This, I am sure you know. But, that “slant” does not belong in news accounts. I realize that it is difficult for a newspaper to obtain complete neutrality in a news report, quite apart from an op-ed, but a legitimate newspaper ought to strive to that end. All too often I find that the MSM couches a particular “slant” within a news account. That is inappropriate.

          I recall a C-SPAN panel discussion, a couple of years ago, involving the impact of weblogs on the dissemination of news commentary. A prominent journalist with the MSM attacked weblogs as unseemly and unprofessional. Worse, that individual wanted to place restraints on weblogs. Indeed, he wanted to shut them down. What this individual fails to understand is that a person does not require a license to practice journalism. That is not the case, obviously, for those who wish to practice law or medicine, for example. And such restraints on the free-flow of information is contrary to the import and purport of the First Amendment. So, a license to present one’s opinion should never be required.

          Now, you assert that the present Arbalest Quarrel op-ed “was so slanted against the NY Times.” I am uncertain whether you meant that remark as a negative comment or simply as a neutral observation. In either case the Arbalest Quarrel does not waver in its commitment to and defense of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. What we do is point to clear fallacies in reasoning on the part of those who would deny the Second Amendment its rightful place in our Bill of Rights. We call out inflammatory remarks where we see them, and we chastise those who would enflame passion to the detriment of reason. But, nothing, in recent memory, that I have come across, at least, is as denigrating to our Founders and to the U.S. Constitution that the Founders created for the benefit of the American People than Frank Bruni’s remark: “When it comes to guns, we have lost our bearings in this country, allowing misguided chest-thumping about a constitutional amendment penned in an entirely different epoch, under entirely different circumstances, to trump all prudence and decency.” No one, to my knowledge, has called Bruni out — and the New York Times, as well — on this matter. Frank Bruni has made an audacious comment about the Law that defies belief. Bruni is not, as far as I know, a licensed attorney. I am. But, even a high school student knows or should know — assuming that the nature of our Government, its history, and the laws under which it operates is still taught in public school — that the “Bill of Rights” sets forth principles designed to operate for this Country, for all epochs, under all circumstances, so long as this Country exists. The “Bill of Rights” is a set of normative prescriptions — moral standards, grounded on natural rights — under which a Free Republic — our free Republic — may continue to exist and operate.

          Take away this or that principle because it merely happens to upset one’s personal, delicate aesthetic and emotional frame of reference and the very fabric of society is weakened — the very fabric of our society is weakened, And, I see this happening. Some may wish to see the Second Amendment repealed outright, based on their own misguided and simplistic view of ethics and ethical systems and upon their own unusual aesthetic precepts that they wish to thrust on the rest of us. Bruni falls into that camp. And some individuals and groups have more ulterior motives for seeing the dismantling of the Second Amendment. In either event, the “Bill of Rights” — and the Second Amendment — is not something to be toyed with and denigrated because it may impinge on one’s personal, “finer” sensibilities. And tragedy should not, in any event, ever be used as, in fact, it is currently used, as a theatrical device to convince the ignorant among us that a redraft of a sacred document is in order. That document, our “Bill of Rights” — in its present form — has stood the test of time and that document is — unchanged — the very exemplar of our Country’s uniqueness and greatness.

          Let other Countries bemoan what they may happen to see as a fault in our Constitution. But, in every other Country, the Citizens exist to serve their Government. Here, in the U.S. the Government exists to serve the People. The U.S. Government is forever reminded of that fact by the very existence of the Second Amendment which places the Government in a subservient role to its Citizens. The Second Amendment serves as a sacred contract — a sacred Trust — existent between the Citizens of the U.S. and its Government. The Founders of our Republic sought to make that contract binding. Through the addition of the Second Amendment to our “Bill of Rights” the Founders made that contract very “Real.”

  5. How about a law that says that anyone and everyone who acts in a way to prevent others from having and using the tools of effective self-defense (read here the pro-crime, anti-self defense, anti-humans rights, anti-gun folks vs those of us normal, sane, sensible, intelligent firearm owning human beings) shall be required to purchase insurance for the harm their behavior causes to others.

    Then, in any instance where access to a firearm, or standard capacity magazines would have protected the victim of crime in any way, and / or lessened the damage, and where such access has been prevented or in any way limited by the anti-human-rights, ant-self defense, (anti-gun) league, then each and every person who acted in the manner to prevent the defense of the victim shall be fully, personally, and financially responsible for the act of the criminals perpetrating the crime (with or without violence or physical injury.)

    Sounds only fair to me.

  6. We go down this same ole crap river every month of every year. There is always a liberal coward that has a plan to disarm the American population, except criminals of course. Answer questions below.
    1. Have you seen, in any state, a concerted effort to get criminals, and their guns, off the streets?

    2. Do you really feel that taking guns from all law abiding citizens will make your children safer?

    If you think that any new gun law will make your kids safer from criminals, you are out of your mind. The police will not be able to save your children then anymore than they can today. You will never see a day where there is an armed police officer guarding every door of every school. Look at the number of illegal alien criminals that have been released onto our streets. Look at all the muslim refugees that are being brought to our country without any background check. Folks, your kids will never be safe again because they go to school in a gun free zone that criminals will always take advantage of because it make them famous, and they will never be challenged. This world we live in is not Utopia, and never will be. Please pull your head out of the sand and realize that we have to protect our kids, and grandchildren. We do that by learning to protect ourselves with a gun. We empower teachers, and administrators, who choose to take on the responsibility of carrying a gun. Put an end to gun free zones and you will make a difference in how this ends. Remember this, criminals will always get guns, they have their own market to get them.

  7. One of the greatest evils are those who take an oath to govern by “delegated
    powers” but use it to take from others what they keep for themselves.

    “A
    Government that does not trust its law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms,
    is itself, unworthy of trust.” –James Madison, chief wordsmith of the
    Constitution

    “Any government that would attempt to disarm its people is
    despotic; and any people that would submit to it deserve to be slaves.”–
    Stephen F. Austin, 1835
    “The historical reality of the Second Amendments
    protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right
    to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right
    to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us.”
    –Judge Andrew Napolitano
    Molon Labe
    And freedom is a gift that not everyone likes to receive…

  8. ‘A government that does not trust its law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, is itself, unworthy of trust’ – James Madison. ‘No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people’ – William Rawle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *