Select Page

The 2nd Amendment, Is It Outdated?

The 2nd Amendment, Is It Outdated?

We were witness to the horrible shooting in Las Vegas last weekend, the tragedy was of unfathomable depth, the loss of life unimaginable, but the response we saw brought light into such darkness that we now have the images of heroes from that day engrained into our collective consciousness as a society. AS usual with this we find the immediate attack by the left against the 2nd amendment, but is it dead?

What we saw that day in Las Vegas, it was both evil and dark, the response was noble and heroic; but what we saw later with tweets from politicians, speeches from late night talk show hosts, movie stars and the rest of the left was sad, taking advantage of tragedy to try to push their political agenda.

Naturally, we saw attacks on the NRA, tweets from various activist asking for the 2nd amendment to be overturned:

Bret Stephens

You had the New York Times publishing editorials to do away with the second amendment. Naturally, this was from a person, Bret Stephens, claiming to be conservative (like the NY Times would allow such a person to put their works in their paper), Michael Moore naturally did the same.

But here lies the problem, that is the fact that no tool has ever in the history of humanity killed anyone, it is the person wielding the tool that causes the mayhem. In attacking the 2nd amendment, they can’t admit that it is not the guns that kill, rather the people, for if they did this, they would not be able to attack the weapons as if they are the ones doing the attacking.

You also heard the other side of the issue, the calls that this is not the time to talk about gun control, but I have to ask, then when? We need to look at this part that is and has been part of the American experience since the beginning of our nation, the right to bear arms, not just to go hunting as many would have you believe, but also for the right to protect one’s self from people seeking to do you harm. But what do our founding fathers say about the 2nd amendment?

President Thomas Jefferson

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

George Mason

“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 Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

President James Monroe

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

We see from this, that the right to bear arms was never intended for home defense, sure not for just the sake of hunting, although this a right of all citizens, the right to bear arms was to keep a tyrannical government from infringing on the rights of the citizenry, it gave them the right to let the government know there were boundaries it could go to, if you crossed them you would be dealing with an armed citizen uprising, it was very plainly spoken of by Patrick Henry:

Patrick Henry

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined… The great object is that every man is armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

The claim from the anti-gun activist that guns were only intended for hunting that could not be more false, the founding fathers were very clear on this, further, to claim that the only way to preserve our liberty is taking the one counterbalance to the government that ensures our liberty, it makes no sense. I find it rather hypocritical and self-defeating that the very people who scream that the government is out of control, they need to impose their will on the government, the first thing they demand is that the government they scream the loudest about is the one they want us to entrust to hold our weapons and our civil liberties.

What is more, we see a concerted effort to erase the power these founding fathers have on the nation, while imperfect, they were great men that set in motion this experiment called democracy. Was it perfect? Of course, it was not, but as with any move to see freedom, you see the lack of it is recognized over time and corrected. To say that they have no bearing on the nation today because they had slaves, it is pure rubbish, while they were imperfect, they set in motion a means to correct this blight on our nation, we should continue to look to them and honor them for what they helped create.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

So I must ask, is the means to stop a shooting as we saw in Las Vegas is to strip the right to bear arms? Of course it is not, funny how you hear this when such tragedy happens, but in spite of abuses the rights were put in place as our inherited right as American citizens, as our great Supreme Court Judges said, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Bump Stock with a high capacity magazine

We don’t need more restrictions or stripping away of the 2nd amendment, we have enough already, what we need is to figure out a way to speed up the process to deal with work around add on’s. We look at the accessory added to the shooting in Las Vegas, the Bump Stock, it was first created to aid handicapped people, after was abused due to its ability if adjusted correctly to cause a gun that was never intended to fire in such a manner to fire in the same rates as a fully automatic weapon. Now this was gone over by the ATF, they said since it still technically was not a conversion to a fully automatic weapons it was legal, but seems they never took into account the high rate of fire, or due to a technical issue were not able to classify it as such, we need to figure out a way to restrict this, and to enable the authorities to act in a timely manner, today with the instant access, going through lengthy political process is not always practical.

Butt Stock unmounted

So do we need the 2nd amendment repealed? Of course we don’t, but what we need to do is figure out a way to build a more robust response in the federal government to deal with items such as the bump stock when they come online in today’s quick manufacturing to sales world. We also need to remember, with 3D  printing becoming more common, we will need a government able to move more quickly to deal with such things in very fast manner.

So do we stop all sales of guns, go into homes, strip legal gun owners of their right to bear and have guns? Of course, we don’t, we figure out a way to better enforce current laws, maybe a more robust way to deal with mental health problems. In the end, you don’t take away a tool because it was abused, if we do that, where does it stop?

I would like to leave this with something I received from my cousin Peter Iverson:

The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.0000925% of the population dies from gun-related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% is through criminal activity, gang, and drug-related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now let’s look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just four cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the cause.
This leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime, but that is the nature of a crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.
But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the wrongful gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).
Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ……………. Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple:
Taking away guns by repealing the 2nd amendment gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.
Thus, the 2nd amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.”





About The Author

Timothy Benton

Author has studied Middle East History for the last 35 years, am a lifetime student of history. Has an interest in sports, tech, history and political events. Works as a Republican political commentator who looks at events from a conservative's perspective.

Leave a reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.