Columbia Student Asks : Is Our Gun Problem: Militia Groups

Columbia Student Nick Liu, UW, Assignment 4 Final Draft

Letters to the AmmoLand Editor
Letters to the AmmoLand Editor: Got something on your mind? Let us know and you can see it here.

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- In light of the recent election, where anything and everything was said for personal gain, what actually should be followed through on?

Specifically, in regard to the Second Amendment, the NRA threw its weight behind Donald Trump, and appealing to conservative Republicans, Trump adopted the pro-Second Amendment, anti-gun control language.

This raises important questions: Should there be changes to the Second Amendment? Should gun laws be stricter, even from the point of view of the staunchest Second Amendment supporters?

There are those who vehemently oppose any sort of gun control, such as NRA leaders and right wing, anti-government militia groups.

They believe any sort of measure to be constitutional overstep, and have every right to believe so, as the Second Amendment protects these gun-bearing and militia-forming organizations.

Nevertheless, politicians have turned the issue into a staple partisan battle, and it shouldn’t be – it is an issue of national safety, with lives at stake: so many accidental shootings and mass killings could’ve been prevented with proper lock and key storage, and studies show that chances of school shootings are significantly lowered with mandatory background checks. There are those on the right that believe the progressive agenda is an absolute, blanket ban on all firearms, and yet, most progressives merely want extensive background checks and storage regulations.

Similarly, to the casual, moderate gun owner like many in my family – those who enjoy shooting recreationally but are only so much invested in either side of the gun rights battle – it is clear that certain changes, like background checks, regulations on firearm storage, and regulations on high capacity magazines and automatic weapons are needed.

Ammon Bundy
Ammon Bundy

Now, from the other side of the spectrum, we can look at the militia groups that fervently cling to radical interpretations of the Second Amendment. For example, one recent incident saw armed men take over a wildlife sanctuary in Oregon in protest of what they thought was constitutional wrongdoing of the federal government. In a scene straight of a small time, independent film that wants to be a blockbuster, Ammon Bundy, a grizzled rancher figure, stands atop a pulpit and delivers a rousing oration to a weathered, rural crowd of working people.

He rants about the government’s injustice and the mistreatment of ranchers and rightfully public lands. He then announces his plan to occupy a wildlife refuge, and in a snowy and icy blaze, dozens of armed men’s get into their trucks and ride off.

The men arrive armed with rifles and AK-47s, and Bundy gruffly smiles and declares this home.

These men believe any encroachments unnecessary and foreshadows of bigger bans – and these men are wrong. They should be the ones supporting these changes, as they affect them in no way. Even the most right wing gun supporters, such as these militia groups, would’ve been able to complete their objectives. The Malheur Refuge occupation would still have occurred, as these men most likely have proper lock and key to store their weapons, would’ve passed the background check, and none were carrying high capacity drum magazines. Under the same logic, other militia groups such as the Oath Keepers and 3 Percenters would still be able to operate. Ultimately, these militia groups should be taking the stance of casual gun owners, as not only would they be able to continue their activities, they would also be improving the safety of many. If they were to support even the simplest firearm storage and ownership regulations, the nation would finally be able to move towards partisan cooperation on the Second Amendment that could benefit all.

Thus, in light of all the shootings and violence, the Second Amendment still needs amending, and these amendments need the support of the right wing.

These Second Amendment people oppose any sort of regulation, but they should actually be supporting what the recreational shooter and progressive want – nothing more than proper storage regulations and background checks. If these parties would just listen to each other and reason, they could continue their agendas and help keep Americans safe. The right to own a gun, which brings with it so much responsibility and power – fundamentally, the power to take away life – is a duty that the American people are able and entrusted by the Constitution to handle. Nevertheless, with such a responsibility naturally comes drawbacks, and when those drawbacks come to haunt thousands of lives and people, measures must be taken, and the left and right must come together to help prevent further mindless violence.

Editor's Note: Nick has some flawed assumptions, so polite corrective comments would be appreciated to expand our student's horizon.

Subscribe
Notify of
67 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael Hutson
Michael Hutson
3 years ago

OK, let’s parse this: “There are those who vehemently oppose any sort of gun control, such as NRA leaders and right wing, anti-government militia groups. They believe any sort of measure to be constitutional overstep, ” Gun control ultimately comes down to saying “you can’t have guns” to some larger or smaller group of people. Everyone agrees that convicted felons and people adjudicated mentally ill should be denied guns. Now, how much further are you going to extend that? To people under domestic restraining orders? To people taking medication for depression? To anyone who meets a certain profile? To anyone… Read more »

Eric_CA
Eric_CA
3 years ago

I didn’t particularly care for this article. The author mentions Oregon, but completely fails to mention that those involved were acquitted. The author is clearly bias. I would wager he has never read the U. S. Constitution.

I found the article to basically be a bunch of gobbledygook.

In closing, I would suggest this student expand his knowledge and read “More Guns, Less Crime” and “The War on Guns.”

Poster’s warning: “More Guns, Less Crime” is a heavily data driven book with statistical analysis and not for the novelist type.

oldshooter
oldshooter
3 years ago

@Larry Brickey – You hold that most anti-gun folks do not actually want to ban all private gun ownership. That is probably true, but probably also irrelevant. Most Germans weren’t actually NAZIs either, nor did they want to exterminate Jews. They just didn’t do anything to stop it until it was too late. Once a restriction is placed into law, it becomes very difficult to remove, even for “Sunset Legislation.” Even if most people who support something like UBCs don’t intend to prevent all, or most, private citizens from having guns, that law will still give the police agencies the… Read more »

Whodaty
Whodaty
3 years ago

To author Nick Liu, Your assignment, regarding this draft of your paper is to read the following book: -Death by “gun control” : the human cost of victim disarmament -Authors: Aaron S Zelman; Richard W Stevens -Publisher: Hartford, WI : Mazel Freedom Press, 2001. If you will allow, these authors will lay out how “sensible” restrictions on citizen armament, going back as far as written history allows, time and again does quite the opposite of what you are suggesting in your thesis. Historically you will find the authors referencing restrictions of knives, swords, spears or any edged or otherwise non… Read more »

Oldshooter
Oldshooter
3 years ago

The left pushes UBCs, magazine size limits, and safe storage laws, not because they really think those restrictions would impact “gun violence,” gun accidents, or crimes, but because they believe those restrictions to be relatively innocuous. They believe, probably correctly, that most people, including many gun owners, will not believe such laws would have any impact on them personally. It seems to them that those laws might be “passable” because they don’t have an obvious downside, and can be sold as something that might help and can’t hurt (at least, not anyone but a rabid gun nut). We need to… Read more »

Robert Hartwig
Robert Hartwig
3 years ago

The author of this BS has a right to his opinion. We have a right to ours. I will in the future make note of this author’s name and skip over his fiction story. I have to much to do in my life without wasting it here.
The only thing I agree with is there should be some non invasive back ground check to see if they are a danger.
How to do this is beyond my ability to create.

Joe
Joe
3 years ago

So you only want to hear what you already know and believe? What happened to the first amendment, the one you are always saying the second is there to protect? If the only thing that is allowed to be posted on this site is stuff you already know and agree with what is the point of having the blog in the first place. You can’t learn anything new so why waste your time reading what you already know?

Mark D
Mark D
3 years ago
Reply to  Joe

The first amendment is to protect us, citizens, from an overzealous government. I can never violate as an individual someone else’s 1st amendment rights, I am not the government. Ammoland can keep people from posting things on its site, and they also are not violating anyone’s first amendment rights, because they are a private entity, not the government. This persons views are not teaching anything new. It is the same point from leftest anti-constitutionalist, that we have to give up on the original meaning of the 2nd amendment to a new meaning that changes at the whim of those in… Read more »

Quagmrie86
Quagmrie86
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark D

Mark D, spot on. *Slow Clap*

Gary
Gary
3 years ago

Another gleaming jewel of colossal ignorance! The inability of Millennials to think critically is further evidence of the necessity to eliminate the Department of Education. Cultural Marxism and Columbia University have had a symbiotic relationship since the 1930’s.

Stephen C. Gregory
Stephen C. Gregory
3 years ago

Once again, the additional restrictions and regulations WILL NOT DETER the heinous acts of the delusional and the criminal. They only further restrict the already law abiding with no deleterious impact on criminals or terrorists. This is what leads to the staunch resistance to what you and other misdirected souls call ‘common sense’ gun control laws. Because the additional regulations you espouse will not fix what you seek to cure, you will have written the new regulations toward the next natural step in the evolution of gun control – confiscation. To enable the coverage of all gun ownership transfers by… Read more »

Adam
Adam
3 years ago

Ignoring the rhetoric regarding militias and groups like Oathkeepers, there are major factual issues with the general thesis. – Automatic weapons are already heavily restricted under federal law, and are not the same as the semi-automatic but cosmetically identical versions that can be purchased by the civilian population at large. – “Universal” background checks are a farce. Per DoJ studies, most criminals steal their firearms, buy them illegally on the street, or obtain them from a friend/family member who is aware of their criminal record. Additionally, so-called “mass shooters” generally have no criminal history and generally purchase their firearms from… Read more »

Truckbuddy
Truckbuddy
3 years ago

It’s not hard to find this Snowflake on Google, he might not be a citizen, and worked with a marketing group with direct ties to China. Oddly enough he also claims to have worked for the NSA. Bizarre resume to say the least.

Jim Macklin
Jim Macklin
3 years ago

I will limit my comments and make just two points. Donald Trump supported the Second Amendment from the very beginning of his run for office. He spoke of his holding ba NYC concealed weapons permit. The NRA supported his BECAUSE he had taken the position. Since 1905, most states and the federal government ceased to support the militia, instead the National Guard was created as a part of the regular Army. The control and purpose of the militia, with the benefits of training, safety and security lost except for the citizens who cherished their rights and stepped in to fill… Read more »

Gil
Gil
3 years ago
Reply to  Jim Macklin

Though the Trump’s stance on guns has been different before his run.

oldshooter
oldshooter
3 years ago

The “casual moderate shooter” referred to by Mr. Liu, who would find UBCs and safe storage laws reasonable, is also the disinterested and uninformed shooter, who has no understanding of the issues involved in those types of measures. That’s the only reason (s)he may see them as “reasonable.” Replacing Mr. Liu’s terms “casual, and moderate” with “uninformed,” casts this whole issue in a more accurate light and makes it more understandable. UBCs do not deter criminal acquisition or use of guns or we would have seen dramatic effects from the stringent existing BC requirements, which are in fact, very nearly… Read more »

Mark D
Mark D
3 years ago

Who let this radical publish an article on Ammoland? I understand trying to explain two sides of a story. But this was an attempt to flat out say that gun owners who believe in the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS are wrong and need to give in to the other side. How in the world is a piece like this on Ammoland? I have questioned a few articles on here before, but nothing as bad as this have I ever seen. Ammoland, control you material before you lose faithful readers.

Mark
Mark
3 years ago

Who let this radical publish an article on Ammoland? I understand trying to explain two sides of a story. But this was an attempt to flat out say that gun owners who believe in the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS are wrong and need to give in to the other side. How in the world is a piece like this on Ammoland? I have questioned a few articles on here before, but nothing as bad as this have I ever seen. Ammoland, control you material before you lose faithful readers.

Tionico
Tionico
3 years ago

this bit: “it is clear that certain changes, like background checks, regulations on firearm storage, and regulations on high capacity magazines and automatic weapons are needed” Quick look at some of the details of the alledged Sandy Hook school shooting. Background checks: perp did not bother with this requirement, preferring to steal the weapons used in his attack. The REQUIREMENT did not STOP him. Safe storage: ALL of the weapons he used had been stored in a purpose made gun safe. By killing his mother )a heinous crime all on its own) he gained access to that safe. So safe… Read more »

Gil
Gil
3 years ago
Reply to  Tionico

What if? What if “some random rare event where you could legally shoot a bad guy dead” scenario? How about what if the “frequent arguments where pulling out a gun and shooting the other person is a criminal offense” instead?

tomcat
tomcat
3 years ago

It is really too bad these young people are so brainwashed to believe this. All he did was take what he could get in a liberal atmosphere and put it on paper. He has been indoctronated and fed the usual leftist untruths that comes from most of our institutions of higher learning. The do little profs that teach this crap, for the most part, have never had a job or lived outside the ivy covered walls. Simular to Bernie Sanders. We can only hope that the change in leadership will rub off to some of these liberals before it is… Read more »

Dave
Dave
3 years ago

joe : December 14, 2016 at 10:17 AM a squad, platoon or company of infantry or marines— whose primary training is how to kill — is no better or worse than an experienced militia of Viet Nam Vets— whose primary training was how to kill — Now as to owning and carrying a gun. Where does it say in the Constitution that American citizens are required to get approval from local politicians to own and/or carry a gun. Please cite the problems you foresee from the actual history of the seven states that now approve Constitutional Carry? Let’s use facts… Read more »

Ron H
Ron H
3 years ago

The ignorance of this writer can be explained by the title “Columbia Student Nick Liu”. He is doing a writing assignment in a class taught by a liberal professor. The facts do not matter.

joe
joe
3 years ago

I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I believe that every qualified US citizen has the right to own, keep, and carry a firearm for personal defense. However, I believe that anyone who thinks that any group, be it an organized militia, or a spontaneous mob, could stand against a squad, platoon or company of infantry or marines called to maintain order is living in a dream. So defending against a tyrannical government is only possible by not letting it happen in the first place, and that means using the your brains and the vote. Now as to owning… Read more »

Tionico
Tionico
3 years ago
Reply to  joe

the thing is, state run “education” is failing our drivers… look at the traffic and rotten habits out there on the road. Mandate government training, or to some arbitrary government designed training, and it will get corrupted. Folks will do the minimum required to get their Mother May I Card, then go do wht they will do anyway. The best gun training happens organically with friends, relatives, coworkers, and some pay for professinal training of THEIR choice. In my state there is no training or skill test as a precondition to getting one’s Mother May I Card to carry concealed.… Read more »

B.Zerker
B.Zerker
3 years ago
Reply to  Tionico

You see it as I do Tionico, but you neglected to mention one important fact in your rebuttal to joe – that being that anyone with criminal intent, educated in firearms safety or not, can illicitly acquire firearms for their desired purposes no matter what requirements government(s) may mandate. Any law enacted to create firearms safety completely ignores this fact and is therefore a worthless gesture thrown to the libtards that believe government sponsored gun-control is a worthwhile endeavor that will change anything.

oldshooter
oldshooter
3 years ago
Reply to  joe

Seems that the Irish had an ongoing revolution for many centuries that pitted “militia” IRA guys (most recently)against Organized military forces” of the British empire. The jury is STILL out on that one in northern Ireland, but the southern two-thirds won their independence in the early part of this century. The armed peasant rabble in Viet Nam managed to beat both the military of the French and of the US. The armed rabble in Colombia recently forced the government of that country to the bargaining table. When that squad of Marines or Army infantry arrive to “maintain order,” and encounter… Read more »

Gil
Gil
3 years ago
Reply to  oldshooter

The U.S. didn’t lose the war – they lost the will to finish the fight.

Quagmire86
Quagmire86
3 years ago
Reply to  joe

Oh, Joe. You just stepped in it. Your argument is completely invalid and I will tell you why. You are equating driving with self protection/bearing arms. The glaring difference, here, is that one (driving) is a privilege and gun ownership is a right derived from our creator and codified and guaranteed within the bill of rights. You see, the roads that we drive on are owned and maintained by the state and we have to qualify to use them and submit a fee to traverse them. But owning a firearm or any weapon to defend my life, or my family’s… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  joe

Say it ain’t so Joe! You state, “…I believe that anyone who thinks that any group, be it an organized militia, or a spontaneous mob, could stand against a squad, platoon or company of infantry or marines called to maintain order is living in a dream.” Well, it happened when the British attempted to leave Concord and march home.

DanD
DanD
3 years ago

The title tells the whole story without even reading the article. We don’t have a “Gun Problem”. We have a people problem, but it is much easier to attack the gun than it is to identify and deal with the people.

CountryBoy
CountryBoy
3 years ago

Maybe , instead , we should be Demilitarizing the various agencies of our Federal Government, like the IRS, EPA, BLM (Bureau of Land Management), the Post Office and others and FORCE them to Build a Case in order to bring in the FBI or Federal Marshals to enforce the LAW, instead of being the Rouge Agencies that they have become…..

Not that this will solve all of the problems with the Federal Government….. just remember the Heavy Hand of the ATF at Ruby Ridge and Waco….. and NO Federal Agents were ever held accountable

Goon100
Goon100
3 years ago

Mr. Liu, your side lost and as President Obama said “elections have consequences”. We have been on defense for the last 8 years. Now it’s your turn to play defense while we have the ball and play offense for a little while. Good luck in getting the ball back we will never retreat and never surrender we are not snowflakes but patriots.

MontieR
MontieR
3 years ago

“studies show that chances of school shootings are significantly lowered with mandatory background checks” this is simply put another line of total BS. Background checks do abjectly NOTHING to stop criminals or crazies from obtaining and or using guns. These ideas that gun control is about “safety” are pure unadulterated BS, along with their “studies” done by partisan, leftist hacks at ivy league indoctrination centers called college. Every aspect of the gun control left is based on one of two factors emotion and lies. This pathological fear being taught by the “progressive left” most of which have NO life experience… Read more »

Truckbuddy
Truckbuddy
3 years ago

Yeah, I’m sure Mr. Liu cares what ANY of us think… My biggest problem with the common nonsense written by Mr. Liu is about magazine capacity. I’m supposed to believe that magazine capacity is an issue? As a licensed, responsible carrier of a weapon for self-defense in this era of division, distrust and hatred created by people like Mr. Liu and our exiting government faction, just how is it reasonable that I would be allowed less ammunition than an individual who doesn’t pay the price of freedom, in essence, a criminal? Less than forces that can be used to take… Read more »

Jacob M. Opperman
Jacob M. Opperman
3 years ago

No I do not believe that changing the 2nd amend. or even the constitution in any way will help it will I think hurt cause the one who want or are changing are going to put there own slant on it and it may not and most probaly will not be what the founding fathers had in mind or even wanted it to be. I think lets just leave it the hell alone. I also think that any one who wants a weapon of any kind will get one legally or not will get one and use it for what… Read more »

RWM
RWM
3 years ago

Oops. Someone drank the koolaid. ALL of it. Looks like he took his “statistics,” from flawed and previously debunked, “studies.” He needs to do some real research, with a sound scientific basis, and get his facts right. Then, he needs to get on board with the true purpose of the Constitution, which is to limit the power of the federal government, not the rights of the people…

Wake_Up_America
Wake_Up_America
3 years ago

The problem is the Gov’t and the ridiculous radical Left-Winged, Ultra Liberal Democrats! Flush them ALL down the toilet and twice on Sunday….tweet, tweet really gonna miss you NOT.

Eric
Eric
3 years ago

I would like to know which “Columbia” Nick is writing this paper for. Anyway, I have concerns about the author’s ability to write a balanced article with the verbiage he used throughout. Words such as, “Vehemently” “Rant, “Fervently” and “Staunchest” are applied to the pro-2nd Amendment side of the equation yet such adjectives are not heaped upon the opposing side (casual gun owners and gun-control advocates). Now, I don’t know if the author is naïve, biased or ideological in his thought process but on the face of the article it appears he holds namely militia groups mainly and 2nd Amendment… Read more »

Tionico
Tionico
3 years ago
Reply to  Eric

not to mention the dilemma I would face should an unwanted intruder, in violation of a number of laes, be pointing HIS weapon at MY person, and I am trying to open up MY gun safe to retrieve my own defensive weapon, locate the ammunition for that weapon, prep the magazine/speed loader then load the weapon and place the first round in bettery so as to defend MY innocent life….. Nick has no idea where or in what circumstances I live, thus cannot assess the “dangers” posed by any firearms, or lack thereof, I might have in MY home. If… Read more »

Quagmire86
Quagmire86
3 years ago
Reply to  Tionico

I can only assume Nick’s position on your scenario but I know that the left/gun control crowd would wish upon you the end result of death. Because you are a vile gun owner with little to no morals, according to them, and any fate that befalls you is just rewards. Plus, you were so cavalier with your storage situation, you invited the criminal into your home (by default) hence you are a danger to public safety just as all of us gun owners are. Liberals profess tolerance, love and understanding unless you disagree with them or live a lifestyle that… Read more »

Guy
Guy
3 years ago

Legislation cannot wipe evil from the hearts of men. Legislation can, and usually does, strip rights from the law-abiding. It is extremely important to keep these things in mind when attempting to legislate against certain behavior.

Bob
Bob
3 years ago

This kid is regurgitating leftist propaganda. There are few empirical facts in this piece and it lacks original, independent thought. When I went to college, we were taught to research multiple views, including opposing views, when making any conclusion. We were encouraged by professors to disagree. It is painful to see colleges become places to indoctrinate youth.

Mike B in WI
Mike B in WI
3 years ago

We do not have any information as to the purpose of Nick’s article, but it appears he is attempting to persuade gun owners, the “right wing” as he calls them in the article, to join with his side and support the regulations he enumerates in the article. Nick is showing his anti-gun, anti-NRA (really anti-freedom) bias in many of his statements by using words that evoke strong emotions. Examples include, “There are those who vehemently oppose any sort of gun control, such as NRA leaders and right wing, anti-government militia groups.” “Vehemently?” “anti-government?” Also this whole paragraph is one big… Read more »

Gil
Gil
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike B in WI

Really? The Waco crowd had guns and ammo – didn’t help them out much.

Dan S
Dan S
3 years ago
Reply to  Gil

If you are using the Waco incident as an example to justify the Liberal agenda, you are morally bankrupt. That is exactly why the populace should remain armed. It is a perfect example of the Government over stepping their authority. Have you visited the scene of that tragedy? Have you researched the backstory on what led up to the standoff? I have. There is a lot more to the story than the liberal media published in their slanted articles, to help justify the governments actions. The Waco Sheriff should have been allowed to serve his warrant on David Koresh without… Read more »

Gil
Gil
3 years ago
Reply to  Dan S

By incessant Conservatives reasoning the Waco group should have been safe and sound because they had guns. Yet for some reason Conservatives keeping watching the vigilante movies assuming it’ll be fact in real life.

oldshooter
oldshooter
3 years ago
Reply to  Gil

Actually, the reasoning doesn’t address “safe and sound,” at all. The reasoning goes that everyone has an inherent, and therefore, “unalienable” right to defend himself against unreasonable attack. In the modern world attack and defense are best accomplished with guns. So, the Branch Davidians had guns, and DID in fact, defend themselves against the government’s unwarranted assault. They held out for weeks, and the whole event became a well known national disgrace. The ATF lost credibility and funding as a result. The citizens eventually lost to the government’s superior firepower. No one in their right mind “Guarantees” your safety, just… Read more »

Tacitus
Tacitus
3 years ago
Reply to  Gil

Most of the guns at Waco were in fact in LOCKED storage, because they were inventory for the licensed firearms dealers living at the compound – who were not present when the attack began. They were at gun shows earning a living, a fact well known to the government thugs who later took grinning selfies with the burning buildings behind them – buildings full of women and children who died because the fire department was held at gunpoint far away from the massacre.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  Dan S

The Waco op was code named “Operation Showboat”. Showboat was designed to show the House that the ATF budget should not be reduced. Then things got out of hand. And the entire affair is, indeed, exactly why the American public should remain armed. Since when does a bureau of the American federal government slaughter people over owed taxes? The ATF should have been decommissioned at that time.

Mick
Mick
3 years ago
Reply to  Gil

Gil, love having you come to this site to display your complete ignorance !

CountryBoy
CountryBoy
3 years ago
Reply to  Gil

Maybe , instead , we should be Demilitarizing the various agencies of our Federal Government, like the IRS, EPA, BLM (Bureau of Land Management), the Post Office and others and FORCE them to Build a Case in order to bring in the FBI or Federal Marshals or State Law Enforcement officials to enforce the LAW, instead of being the Rouge Agencies that they have become….. Under Bill Clinton (D) there was the Waco incident with the Branch Dividians… During the attack by ATF and government forces, a fire engulfed Mount Carmel Center and 76 men, women, and children were killed.… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  CountryBoy

@Country Boy, An excellent recitation of the fact. The Epilog is: The ATF sniper was charged by the county prosecutor. The case was “removed” to Federal District count. Then the case was dismissed.

Tionico
Tionico
3 years ago
Reply to  Gil

The Branch Davidians did have guns… all of them lawfully acquired and possessed. They committed NO CRIMES, though accusations and innuendo were rampant against them. It was our own Department of “Justice” that feloniously attacked them iwth superior firepower in their own lawfully occupied premises. Even a BMG 50 is no match for a TANK… which is what was used against them. The instant they might have begun firing upon the assaulting military force they’d have been met with overwhelmong force….. they did not go on the offensive, they only wanted to be left in peace to live their lives… Read more »

Gil
Gil
3 years ago
Reply to  Tionico

So how are you going to fight a tyrannical government when you already have a test case that it doesn’t work?

Quagmire86
Quagmire86
3 years ago
Reply to  Gil

I would submit the battle of Athens.

Gryyphyn
Gryyphyn
3 years ago
Reply to  Gil

I would cite the Revolutionary War in which a significantly under-armed force of regular men and some women became their own means of defense against an oppressive, tyrannical government. We know we may die but we refuse to allow ourselves to believe we will not succeed.

erik iversson
erik iversson
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike B in WI

the true test to see if what he says is true is to look at who supports the 2nd amendment .most supporters are vets with the vast majority being enlisted and non general staff officers .if these people have a distrust of the goverment it maybe because we know what can happen .for example the branch Dravidians in waco tx . when the goverment said they didnt know the tear gas that they used they said it was not flammable yet every soldier knows when they go through basic in the gas room that the canisters state do not expose… Read more »

Dr. Jim Clary, PhD
Dr. Jim Clary, PhD
3 years ago

Nick puts up Bundy and militias as strawmen as an excuse to amend the 2nd Amendment. I have heard his type argue like this for over 60 years…. “what we need is sensible gun control by modifying the 2nd amendment”…. What they really mean is that guns are OK for them, but not for the rest of the law abiding citizens in the country. My view…. don’t fix something that isn’t broken. The 2nd amendment was put there to protect us from dictators and tyrants…. and we must never allow those who would weaken it to have their way.

enslaved citizen
enslaved citizen
3 years ago

Nick is a hack in the making. Perhaps he can get a job at CNN?

Cary Secrest
Cary Secrest
3 years ago

I am a scientist, and when I write papers, they are factual. Though well-written, the author has a problem with facts. The NRA, for example, fully support existing Federal law, and advocates for actual enforcement, such as prosecuting against “straw purchases,” which Obama’s Justice Department has ignored. Another example of weak research: “…studies show that chances of school shootings are significantly lowered with mandatory background checks.” This statement is fiction. As an avid reader of John Lott, Jr., I can assure the author that sources such as the Brady Campaign are to be ignored. As for the militia, the author… Read more »

Larry Brickey
Larry Brickey
3 years ago
Reply to  Cary Secrest

Well said. And while some of the anti gun folks really do want to outlaw personal gun ownership, most do not. I believe the 2nd needs a rewrite to 1: insure that the right is an individual one and 2: ensure that restrictions by the states and feds do not leave us without due process. Some commentators here are absolutists and that is a short sighted view which entrenches the other side even more. There are people who should not possess guns. The challenge is to pass laws restricting them while leaving the rest of us alone. Before any new… Read more »

Gryyphyn
Gryyphyn
3 years ago
Reply to  Larry Brickey

Larry I like your statement but I would offer a correction. In the Heller decision the justices, particularly Justice Scalia, indicated that the operative clause “[…] the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is not limited by the prefatory clause. I won’t rewrite the complete statements, instead I’ll refer you to an analysis of the opinion and dissents of the Heller decision: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html The right enumerated guarantees the same singular protection as the First and Fourth amendments. The author of the above article doesn’t seem to recognize that the individual right to keep… Read more »

Larry Brickey
Larry Brickey
3 years ago
Reply to  Gryyphyn

I’ve read all that but still believe a rewrite would be for the better. No more 5 to 4 decisions on our rights.

Stephen C. Gregory
Stephen C. Gregory
3 years ago
Reply to  Larry Brickey

No rewrites, please! I can’t think of a worse way to ‘correct’ this non-issue. I can’t picture a similar sized group of people that could be cobbled together in these times that would have the collective foresight and wisdom of our forefathers. It already simply says “the right of the people…” which is totally unambiguous. It needs no other support or reinterpretation. In a rewrite I am more concerned with the inclusion of too many progressive liberals to keep it so totally unambiguous. They can’t leave a simple statement simple with out the inclusion of qualifying parameters subject to future… Read more »

Jomo
Jomo
3 years ago

The author of this piece believes in the magic of enlightened government. He is likely of the sort that would say ‘Inhave nothing to hide’. Unfortunately the reality is that governments are not benign entities seeking merely to foster the prosperity and health of the people. They are always potential despite who will use any opening to seek further power over the masses. This is why we are against gun-control. Gun-control never works as advertised. When it fails (usually spectacularly), the proponents always double down and ask for more laws. The author should note that most if not all the… Read more »

Delta
Delta
3 years ago

What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?