United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- This past week marked the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States. As a governing document, it has performed brilliantly over the last 232 years, and remains the best framework for governing that has been crafted by human hands and minds.
Second Amendment supporters have much to be thankful for in this document. The Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms that pre-existed its enactment in December 1791, is arguably the one most would mention at first, but we should look at some of the other provisions as well.
For starters, we should also be grateful for the First Amendment, which protects out right not just to speak out against anti-Second Amendment legislation, but also the freedom of the press (which is exercised by Ammoland.com), the right to peaceably assemble (to form groups like the NRA to help magnify our voices), and the right to petition for the redress of grievances (to contact lawmakers to oppose efforts to wrongfully infringe upon the rights of law-abiding Americans).
The purpose of the First Amendment is very clear: It recognizes a series of pre-existing rights regarding our ability to think, pray, and to speak. Or, in other words, to persuade our fellow Americans to support our cause. In some cases, it may be getting a like-minded person to decide to vote or to become a grassroots activist. In other cases, it’s about changing the mind of someone who may support infringements on our rights.
We also owe our rights to some of the institutions established in the document itself. For instance, the composition and workings of the United States Senate have proven to be an outstanding firewall in recent years against legislation that mindlessly punishes millions of innocent people for the acts of a miniscule minority that were borne out of malice or madness. The fact that South Dakota and Arkansas have a legislative body in which their citizens have a voice equal to those of California and New York has kept many schemes that would have wrongfully deprived millions of Americans their God-given rights from being enacted.
Similarly, we can be thankful for the Supreme Court, with its rulings in the Heller and McDonald cases. Those rulings have made clear the truth Second Amendment supporters have long known: That the right to keep and bear arms was a right guaranteed to individual citizens, and that the states could not infringe upon it, either.
The founders knew the purpose of that right: It was to ensure that citizens had the tools to protect themselves and to effectively exercise their right to self-defense. While many Second Amendment supporters recognize the need to be able to defend against tyranny or against those who mean to do harm, the Second Amendment also protects the tools that protect against starvation (what is a more effective tool for hunting than a firearm?) or even the loss of dignity (see the case of David Smith, who received a diagnosis of Parkinson’s Disease, but who found a new career via the responsible exercising of his Second Amendment rights).
These days, many in America bemoan how far we have strayed from this document. With regards to the Second Amendment, in some states, the infringements are extremely onerous. For instance, New Jersey’s licensing scheme (see here for a good summary) for handgun purchasing is arguably the worst in the country, requiring you get two other “reputable” citizens to vouch for your right to own a gun. The death of a woman, Carol Bowne, at the hands of her abusive ex-boyfriend, can arguably be laid at the feet of this state’s laws.
California’s laws on modern multi-purpose semi-automatic firearms are also extremely onerous. That state literally requires a person’s heirs to destroy a gun that is passed down to them – unless they can get a permit from the state’s Department of Justice. Nobody who knows the statistics thinks that this law makes any difference, but each year sees more and more anti-Second Amendment legislation in that state.
How do we get back to the original intent of the Founders? First of all, we should recognize that all Second Amendment supporters share that end goal. Second, we need to recognize the need to units, given the high stakes of the 2020 election. Third, we need to work to make progress wherever we can, even if it is one slice at a time. Finally, we need to pass a love of the Constitution down to future generations, so that we may one day return to the intent of those who founded the country.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
I’m reading “Last Call” about prohibition. What we see happening in the United States is nothing new and as posted below our Constitution has been under attack from the start. Now I ‘ve just started the book but see many parallels going on now as what led up to Prohibition.
The Constitution was essentially bastardized by amendments for income tax, voting for senators gutting the 10th Amendment, and Prohibition. All of which gave the gov’t massive powers not delegated by U. S. C.
@KenW, Who is the author of “Last Call”
If it weren’t for the back stabbing Republicans, the Part Time 2A defending NRA, SCOTUS who refuses to hear most of these cases, the 22,000 and counting Anti-2A Unconstitutional Guns laws would not be on the books. This is a disgrace what people that are suppose to be on the side of Freedom, Individual Rights and Liberty is doing against the American people they swore they would defend, uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. At least we know where the Democrats stand. Republicans are the lying, frauds, deceptive traitors that I will not vote for again. You… Read more »
@UT, All that and just “Wake up America!” No other suggestions to change things or to prepare on the personal level? Because … I am all ears.
I’ve been handing out a tri-fold for years with a possibility. Yet to find a single set of ears. I’d email you one, or snail mail if I knew the address.
Be glad to discuss it. The bottom line is a website that replaces currency (paper of no value), with direct barter, which puts any two traders together with each other via internet.
@Knute Knute, Trifold? What is the scoop? What is the website?
No website. Setting one up was my purpose for writing the pamphlet, but no one has ever been interested. I wrote the text quite a few years ago. My idea is for a website that would be open code and anyone can set up a free account. They would list what products or services they wish to trade away, and the things they desire to trade them for. Then the internet would put those two parties together, removing the largest impediment to direct barter. Any use of currencies, or even monies with actual value, are only INdirect barter. Most of… Read more »
At 1500 words its a bit long for a comment, but I’ll try it anyway. Maybe someone might see it. It looks like I can post the first third. If there’s any interest I’ll post the rest in two more comments….. : For hundreds of years, an elite few have used the power of creating ‘money’ out of nothing, and at virtually no cost, to become the ‘Authorities’ of the entire planet. So what is the answer to this problem? Continue with this same horrible system, or create something new without its inherent flaws? We must give up on the… Read more »
That went right through. I’ll try the other two thirds. : There could just be a website, set up like classified ads, that lists everybody’s skills and goods, and whatever they want for them. Then a second section could list whatever it is that they desire to trade for. All this site would need to do is to put the person who has thing “X” but wants thing “Y”, together with another person that wants thing “X” and has thing “Y” that s/he no longer wants. It would make direct barter not only possible, but easy. True laissez-faire capitalism, wherein… Read more »
FINAL THIRD : This would then leave something akin to the precious metals or the like in the role of a store of value for one’s excess wealth. With one system for spending(the “credit hours”) and another for saving, hoarding(AKA; saving) would cause no disruption to the system. It could even be possible, should it be desired, that one could trade their precious metals (or whatever other store of value people decide they like) to purchase “credit hours” on the system so that one could then get something from someone without having to provide either goods or services, but only… Read more »
@Knute Knute, First I want to thank you for that huge effort.
I don’t think that confining one’s self to barter would solve the things that Uncle T complained of, but it is a great way to get around income taxes.
No it wouldn’t. It could help, but the only real way to remove the corruption entirely is to completely change the system away from payments to borrow things that don’t actually exist. The corruption is built right into the monetary system, even if it was on the gold standard. The central banking system has used this to control all currencies, and so would put all of their resources into any better system’s destruction. Those that benefit from the fraud will defend it at all costs. That much is obvious. But the first stage (direct barter) would at least be a… Read more »
WB; No, I would like to thank YOU. Dividing it into thirds to fit on a comment board inspired me to do yet another rewrite. The pamphlet now has three parts titled: “Indirect vs direct barter”, “A new financial system”, and “the big payoff”. I think it’s much better now. Printing up another hundred today. My hope is by passing out enough copies, perhaps some will survive the test of time. The online memory hole is large enough to hold all human knowledge and then some. Printed copies are much harder to get rid of. Even though, to quote Mitch… Read more »
Almost from day one, there were those that try to undermine our Constitution. They have been successful on many occasions, twisting it, to their own advantage. They do this with fear, telling the sheeple they will keep them safe.there is only one person responsible for your safety.
The Democrats and Republicans are the ones telling you this, with the MSM about 90% onboard with the agenda.
They want this power over us for what reason?
From 1620 to 1768 North American colonies were puppets of old European nations. England forced the colonists into a British Militia to fight French. The French encouraged the [Indians/native Americans/refugees from Asia during the last ice age] to fight Englishmen. The English taught the Indians to scalp since they English paid a bounty. By 1768 the largest settlement of Boston was becoming independent thinkers. The British King George send an Army to Boston that almost doubled the adult male population. In 1773 a group of Bostonian’s threw the Kings tea in the harbor to protest a 2% tea tax, Somewhere… Read more »
Rules not Rulers. Today we only have the latter.
A very sticky wicket about the Second Amendment is that the Constitution authorizes American citizens, as the militia, to keep and bear the full weaponry of war to defend the free state. With all respect to the delicacy of the deer hunting parameters that Americans have tolerated being placed around the Second Amendment, the “Second Amendment Lite” that we have lived under for 85 years is not the actual Second Amendment at all, but instead a feeble gesture at saying that we as free Americans are the defenders of our nation and our freedom, but, well, really only kinda sorta.… Read more »
@Bill, You write, “… the Constitution authorizes… ” You should have written God gave, and the founder’s enshrined in the Second Amendment.
And you wrote: ” … as the militia, to keep and bear the full weaponry of war to defend the free state…” You should have written: “… as an individual human being, to keep and bear the full weaponry of war to defend themselves, their families, their community and the free state, as you deem necessary.”
“and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Our Founding Fathers made perfect sense of it and their instructions are quite clear.
We need everyone to realize that the other 9 Amendments are just as important as the 2nd. Too many “conservatives” are willing and even eager to throw the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments under the bus because “they only protect criminals”. When you support the drug war, you are wiping your bottom on the Bill of Rights. When you support ” a little street justice” by cops you are wiping yourself on the Bill of Rights.
@Harold, Not bad. You’re getting closer.
And it seems to read better if in his last paragraph it’s unite not units.
@AH, true.
Perhaps our constructive criticisms have been having their intended effect? Really, I do not like to find fault with people’s opinions, but when errors appear in print (or online, which still counts), they must be corrected, else they fool the newbies.
@Knute Knute, Good point!
The implication of your statement is that society does not require adherence to laws in order to function properly, and that, for example, imprisoned violent felons should have the right to keep and bear arms. Be careful not to perceive the Constitution as the sole component of the rules of society of men. It functions only within a broader context – for example, historically, by reflection on the Declaration, Judaeo-Christian ethics, and The Federalist – to fully flesh out its meaning.
There were never any historical restrictions placed upon a released prison inmate, up until 1934. At that time the NFA made it so that a felon with a record could not legally buy a full auto, saw off a shotgun barrel below 18″, purchase cannon (destructive devices), and etc. Before that a man released from prison was the same as every other man. Then, people thought that if a man was safe enough to realese into society, then he was safe enough to possess weapons to defend himself with, and if he wasn’t safe they kept him locked up. Seems… Read more »
@Knute Knute, it was such a tiny step that no one noticed.
gsteele: I think your confusion arises from your belief that “imprisoned violent felons should have the right to keep and bear arms”, is implied by restoring felons rights.
That is quite a misunderstanding. Naturally, a prison inmate has NO RIGHTS while in prison. He has lost them all, including freedom of movement.
That is what due process is all about. No man shall have his rights taken from him by society… WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. WITH due process, yes.
BUT, once RELEASED and no longer in prison, is the time frame that is being discussed here, not WHILE incarcerated.
@gsteele, Imprisoned violent felons have not paid their debt to society. Once violent felons have paid their debt to society, their rights should be restored so that they can start over, begin anew, reenter society. If it were otherwise then every felony conviction would be a life sentence. Most unusual.
Never being an equal again is cruel when you think about it. Just one more reason that the GCA is unconstitutional.
The left pushes that narrative because it is such an easy way to gain control. Push “only for the law abiding”, for a while… it sounds good to those who don’t think deeply. And the next thing they know, everything is illegal and there aren’t any “law abiding” people left. Only subjects.
Elections? You expect those running to NOT break their oaths? 27,000 infringements against what can not be infringed per the document you reference? Lysander Spooner “Whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain – that it has authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.In either case it is unfit to exist” as per elections “a man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years”.. DJT gave us the trump/bump stock ban which Obama did NOT… Read more »