I'm not really sure what to say for my first post, especially because at this point I'm the only one who knows this blog exists. I started this blog to get my thoughts out on various issues, so i suppose I should start with the issue on my mind right now. I just wrote a letter to President Obama concerning HR 1022 and HR 45. For those of you unfamiliar with these two pieces of legislation, they are the newest in a long string of attempts by the government to control the trade and ownership of guns. HR 45 is a blanket mandate to all who wish to own guns, concerning licensing and police tracking. HR 1022 is an 'assault weapons' ban. my problem with the term 'assault weapon' is that the definitions cover how the weapon looks, as separate from the functionality of the piece. with current definitions, if you take any semi-automatic, detachable magazine rifle, you can turn it into an assault weapon by adding: a pistol grip, as defined by a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip, a barrel shroud, (a covering for the barrel, protecting the shooter's hand from the heat of the barrel), a forward grip, or a telescoping or folding stock. None of these aspects change the way the gun functions. They do make it scary looking. A Bushmaster semi-auto AR-15 looks scary, even though it's functionality is no different than the majority of semi-automatic rifles. The Bushmaster AR-15 is specifically banned in HR 1022.
My point in writing this is not to cover each aspect of these bills. There are many others with a better understanding of them who have beat me to it. Instead, I wish to look at the idea of gun control as a whole. First and foremost in this debate is the second 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." Simple and plain, yet full of meaning. It doesn't say that the people can have guns. It says that the government can't prevent them from having guns. The bill of rights is not a set of rights that you have as a citizen, it is a set of limitations on government. The government cannot infringe upon your right to bear arms. There are people who dither about what defines an arm, what is reasonable for people to own, and many more irrelevancies. The government IS NOT ALLOWED to prevent you from owning a firearm.
To understand the second amendment, you need to understand why it was written. The founding fathers could never have dreamed that the government would attempt to prevent people from owning weapons for hunting. Hunting was the primary way of life in that time. If you wanted meat, then you went out and you shot it yourself. No, they put in the second amendment as a check against tyranny. These men had just freed themselves from the tyranny of the British through the use of the musket. They knew that power corrupts. Indeed, Jefferson intended for there to be a revolution every 100 years. 70 years later, the South took up arms against the economic tyranny of the North. Keep the people of this country free of tyranny. Bear arms. Understand arms. Be responsible for yourself. Stay free.
Please comment respectfully.