A conclusion on my trio of posts on the Second Amendment.
This has been an interesting week. I had decided early on that I would write on my Second Amendment thoughts. I never thought there would be Well Armed Woman drama regarding their FaceBook and Instagram accounts. Check out my earlier post, The Right of the People, for my thoughts on the matter.
I am a strict Constitutionalist. If something is not in the Constitution, it is not up to the federal government to handle. If a right is specifically listed as being for the people, it belongs to the people, no government interference necessary. As such, I believe that we, as individuals, have the right to firearms.
We should have access to any and all firearms, no NFA required.
One of my biggest pet peeves is when those who are against the Second Amendment state that “Assault Rifles” should not be allowed, nor should “clips” that hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition. First of all, they can not define what an “Assault Rifle” is; they usually say “You know, an AR-15. AR stands for Assault Rifle.” This is when I take the time to explain that they are wrong, that AR stands for Armalite Rifle, the manufacturer of the firearm. I enjoy showing them a picture of a Mosin Nagant or M1 Garand next to a “tactical” .22, and ask which is the worst firearm. They always go with the .22, because it “looks like an automatic rifle that can kill people.” They don’t know what they are talking about, and just because a firearm “looks” scary, it is the bad one. The other argument in this arena is that 50-caliber ammunition should be banned, because it is used by “Assault Rifles.” I’m sorry, but 50-caliber ammunition is not used by the so-called “Assault Rifles.” Homework, people!
At the time the Second Amendment was written, all firearms were weapons of war; we had just fought a bloody revolution to gain our independence. If we were to ban “weapons of war,” would you be ok with the only people holding “Assault Rifles” to be the police and the military? I am sure not ok with that, and I do support our police and military to an extent (a topic for another time). You tell me that you are fine with the police and military (who most fighting the Second Amendment already have a problem with) being the only ones with ARs and automatic rifles, and we will have a problem.
The next argument, regarding how many rounds a firearm should hold, is quite amusing. The fact that people assume a “clip” is the same as a magazine, kills me. I’m sorry, my tiny pistol does not take a clip, it is not a WWI-era rifle, it takes a magazine. When I bring up the fact that the majority of handguns come standard from the manufacturer with a 15 or 16-round magazine, they cannot hold a smaller magazine, the looks are priceless. Yes, my handgun comes with a 6-round mag; it is a smaller firearm for concealed carry. Revolvers do not hold a clip or magazine; their 5 or 6 bullets go into the barrel. If a nationwide ban on “clip” or magazine sizes were to go into effect, the majority of firearm users would immediately become felons, strictly due to the legal firearms they previously purchased. But that is ok, I would love to carry two revolvers on my hip. We can go back to the OK Corral days with shoot-outs at noon. Who has the quicker draw?
The reality is, the people who are the most vocal about the Second Amendment have no clue what they are talking about. They see a black rifle, usually with a picatinny rail, a scope, maybe a sling or a tripod, and an extended magazine, and they freak out. The M1 Garand or Mosin Nagant are not at all scary, yet they were used in the major wars of the 20th century, because they are wooden stocks. The way I see it, if you want to regulate something, do your homework. Don’t go out there making statements based on emotion. Take a Basic Pistol or Intro to Rifle class, join The Well Armed Woman, go to a Project Appleseed event near you.
Yes, there are bad people out there with guns. Yes, there are people with mental issues who should not have access to firearms. Taking guns away from the legal owners (who are actually more law-abiding than the police) is like taking cars and licenses away from sober drivers because drunk drivers are causing accidents. Is this something we need to regulate at a national level? No; we are given that right by the Founding Fathers who wrote our Constitution. So, please, go out there, and do you homework. If you are pro-2A or anti-2A, do your homework. Do not just say “Guns Good!” or “Guns Bad!”, because you will not be heard.