Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
by: Stephen LaSpina
You’ve probably heard something like this before:
“I don’t want to ban any guns, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have reasonable gun control laws.”
Or:
“I’m all for the Second Amendment; but no one needs a rapid-fire assault rifle that’s basically a killing machine.”
And:
“No one wants to take your hunting rifles, but the Founding Fathers never envisioned the capability of modern weapons.”
Some variation of these common arguments are repeated over and over again, sometimes by well-meaning, albeit ignorant people. Politicians use similar language hoping to appeal to both sides of the political aisle. They attempt to sound diplomatic and measured while simultaneously asking gun owners to compromise even more of their rights away.
We presently have a massive amount of restrictions on gun ownership in our nation, as well as in the state of Pennsylvania. Firearms owners are subjected to numerous laws regarding what kinds of guns they may own, how they may purchase them, how they may transport them, where they may have them, how they can accessorize them, and much, much more. Not only do these laws fail to prevent violent criminal acts, but they are the very definition of “infringements” on a Constitutionally-protected right.
When someone says, “I’m for the Second Amendment, but…” and ends the sentence with yet another new infringement they’d like to see become reality, it’s very clear they do not understand the importance or spirit of the Second Amendment.
At the time those words were written, our Founding Fathers had just thrown off a tyrannical, abusive, and manipulative British government that had, for years, refused to give them due representation on many important issues. Ultimately, in a desperate effort to control and subdue, that same British government sent troops to seize the arms of the Colonists, which sparked the beginning of the War for Independence.
So while hunting and sporting are wonderful pursuits, neither were the driving force in motivating the writing of the Second Amendment. Our forefathers knew firsthand how governments often abuse their own citizens.
Further, it must be noted that the Second Amendment places limits on government, NOT citizens. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Under our Constitution, you do not need to explain why you personally want a certain kind of gun, or how many varieties of guns you want, or how many total guns you decide to own. A free people does not justify their rights to the government; they inherently possess those natural rights, and they freely exercise them. The onus is on the government to not infringe upon this right.
Responsibly-armed citizens are not problematic to a government operating within its limits. But they can be an effective roadblock to a government who would oppress or enslave them. A free people should be wary of any government attempting to disarm them of their liberty or property.
So the next time you hear someone proposing “reasonable gun control,” kindly but firmly reject their premise. You can even share with them this quote from our nation’s first President, George Washington: “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”