2nd Amendment - Gun Control or People Control?

Are Guns or People the Problem? I want to preface my opinions about this debate explaining that I am an avid gun owner and 2nd amendment advocate. I utilize my guns for hunting, target shooting, and if needed, personal self-defense. I am a conceal handgun license holder and have done this for many years. I listen to metal and rock & roll, play video games, played dungeon & dragons, played many physical sports, and active in partaking in my 1st amendment freedom of speech. I guess if you go by the so called "experts" and pundits, and I use that terms sarcastically, that I am a potential candidate for being monitored. I have to laugh in that these so called experts have no clue what a well adjusted, highly successful, motivated and devout individual is all about. If you don't fall into their so called "normal" box then you are flagged. This leads me to the current gun control debate. Many people keep throwing around "mentally ill" individuals. They say that we need to keep guns out of the hands of those individuals with mental illness. Ok, then define for me what is considered mentally ill. Is it a diagnosed illness? Is it someone that is taking medication for a mental illness, ie. depression/anxiety. Is it anybody taking any drug that can alter the mental status of an individual whether it be an illegal substance or an antihistamine for allergies. The problem with throwing out these exclusions is that no one ever ask for the definition or the details behind that exclusion. You would think the press would have asked this, but again the press has their own agenda and in my opinion are so far on the communist side that they lost all credibility years ago. I guess we have to pass the legislation to find out what it really means or what is in it. Kind of like Obamacare, but I digress for the sake of making a point and some humor.

What is the 2nd Amendment? A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So what does those words mean to you? If you look at history the 2nd amendment was based partially on English common-law and influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The right to bear arms was described as one that is necessary and innate in the ability for self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the duty of every citizen to act in the defense of the state. You may say that was then and this is now. I doubt any of those really apply to what we have to deal with today. I guess it comes down to your philosophy of either being dependent or being independent. I choose to be able to defend myself if needed rather than relying on the police to hopefully get to my house in time to prevent the crime. I also believe that if you do not learn from history it is almost certain to repeat itself. Think of all the governments around the world that have oppressed their citizens and ruled over them with an iron hand, even to the point of extermination. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. Basically, the 2nd amendment does not give the right to the people, but rather limits government's actions. The right to defend oneself is given to us by our creator not government. So for all you progressives that want to limit our rights you basically do not trust an individual (which you always try to tout individual liberties, ie. right to choose) and your view is the government is the sole source of peoples rights. If you research United States v Cruikshank, United States v Heller, and McDonald v Chicago you understand my point. Alexander Hamilton stated, "If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens." in the Federalist Papers regarding the militia. This is a powerful statement showing the founders of our constitution believed that the 2nd amendment is not just regarding people that serve in a militia, military, or governmental agency, but all citizens have the right to bear arms for their own protection as well as the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Guess what, if our original colonist didn't have weapons do you think they could have broken away from the English rule that in their eyes were overly oppressive?

Current Debate - False Security and Immorality So this all leads me to the current debate to restrict firearms, magazine capacity, background checks, and whatever else they can dream up to give you a false sense of security. To me it is immoral and unethical to use the tragedy of the death of innocent children to try to pass legislation that would do absolutely nothing to prevent that tragedy nor prevent further tragedies. Lets look at some of the current thoughts: - Magazine capacity: Some states have set limits to no more than 7 - 10 bullets per magazine. So let me understand their rationale here. They say that it will take time to change magazines so that the death count is reduced. Oh so 10 dead is acceptable? Let me bring you a dose of reality. I can change a magazine in less than 2 seconds. When the average police response is in minutes how is this going to limit the death count. I apologize if this is a bit on the morbid side. You have to face reality. Limiting the capacity will do absolutely nothing but is more progressive feel good measures to make it look like they are doing something and being heroic. Finally, how is limiting the magazine going to prevent someone with pure evil from committing such violent acts? - Aesthetics vs Function: Some states have restricted so called "assault" weapons from being sold. Look up the definition of assault. Any weapon (fist, knives, guns, ...) can be considered an assault weapon. So now we are limiting a firearm based on its looks and a word that makes it sound so mean? Let me give you another dose of reality. The popular AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon that looks like the military version but is far from its military counterpart. It basically fires a bullet just slightly bigger than a 22 caliber bullet but at a much greater velocity. My hunting rifle, 30-06, has far more power and is far more deadly than the AR-15. My 12 gauge shotgun is far more powerful at close range than an AR-15. Even my 40 caliber handgun is beyond the AR-15. If you look at the deaths from firearms handguns are the vast majority. The AR-15 is rarely used and average about as many deaths a year as vending machines falling over on someone (Vending Machines Almost As Deadly As AR-15s In Mass Shootings – Bearing Arms). Simply stated another feel good measure progressive legislatures and Governor's have passed which accomplishes nothing more than feed the uneducated a false sense of security. - Background checks: They want to expand background checks. Notice the word expand. Yes we already have a background check system. Do me a favor and go to any gun shop or your local Cabelas and try to buy a gun. You guessed it - there is a background check. So what is the harm of expanding it? First, anytime you have a background check you create a record. That record is suppose to be private and given to authorities if needed. But if you recall not too long ago a newspaper, which I will not mention to give them free press, published all the records of gun owners in the state of New York on a map (Too far? Newspaper publishes gun owner's home addresses - CBS News). You didn't need to have a database on the federal level for this newspaper to get the info. This put not only the gun owners at risk but especially those individuals that do not have weapons. It was an immoral and unethical act. So am I suppose to trust that creating even more records is in my best interest? Especially when the Federal government has access to this information. Finally, what is the criteria that will exclude you from being able to sell or buy a firearm? I want to know these details before I will think about jumping on board to support this idea. Ask yourself a question - when we were first a country and throughout our history did the government need to know who had guns? Why can't you assume everyone has a weapon? Did we have an epidemic of settlers just going on rampages offing everyone in site? There is no guarantees that this information cannot be collected, collated, and published which is a threat to my well being from those that have no regard for life or the preservation of life. So as of now I am against this measure. In conclusion, just look throughout history of anytime an item has been banned or made illegal, was it impossible for the criminal element to get? Think of prohibition of alcohol. Did people still obtain alcohol? The answer is yes because those that could care less about the law either made it or brought it across the border and sold it. The same can be seen in illegal drugs. All you do is punish the God fearing, law abiding citizen from partaking in the activity. Like I wrote earlier, that is not for the government to decide, as the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Unfortunately, you just witnessed that guns are not the only method to commit large scale devastation. The Boston bombers didn't use a gun but explosives. Those are illegal but they found a way to get them and create a weapon that would do massive harm. No inanimate object can perform an action without the intent of its human partner to commit such evil. So this leads me to my question, is it the gun or the human you need to focus your energy? I have run an experiment for multiple decades in which I have had a loaded gun in my home. I am waiting for it to discharge and take the life of someone. As of the writing of this post it has yet to do harm. My point and conclusion is that the gun or any other weapon in history is not the problem, but it is the evil nature of the human that wields that weapon. You must work on identifying those that on the edge, getting them help, and building strong family and community bonds. My theory is that as time has gone on we are no longer familiar with our neighbors, friends, and even family. We are so busy being virtual with each other and focusing on ourselves that we have lost our ability to identify, support, and report those that need help. There is no shame in actions that are against societal norms any longer and we have pushed people into isolation where they feel only one recourse and that is to lash out with extreme measures. I ask you to look in the mirror and search deep in yourselves. No object can be the problem but only the image looking back at you in the mirror. Make Each Day Count! Beach Bum Philosopher

Note: upon moving this original post from my old blog site I added a few updates 04/17/2021.