Second Amendment Debate


February 15, 2004, 12:44 PM
I'm one of four speakers on Tuesday. Won't be a huge crowd, maybe 30 at the most, but it should be fun. Here's my part:

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. What does that mean, really? Why is it important? And what would happen if we eliminated the Second Amendment? My opponents have tried to convince you of the false hope promised by an impossible utopia. I'll focus more on fact and logic throughout my discussion.
Let's first discuss semantics. "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." "Militia" refers to "all able bodied men." "People" as it also appears everywhere else in the Constitution refers to "us". And "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed.".
The important thing to note is that we all want the same thing: that is, safety and our continued way of life. There are three types of controllers:
1. Those who are misinformed who think that they're doing the right thing.
2. Those who project their own fears of what they would do with a gun if they had one. And
3. Politicians who use gun-control to scare people into voting a certain way.
So where did this all start? After all, a few decades ago we could all buy a handgun from the Sears catalog and see an episode of "Leave it to Beaver" with Beaver handling firearms with his girlfriend's father. Modern day gun-control began with the rash of assassinations and inner city riots of the 1960's. Clearly, these incidents had absolutely nothing to do with the law-abiding gun owner, but politicians jumped on it to pretend that they're actually doing something about these tremendous problems.
Continued efforts to undermine the Second Amendment threaten the core concept of liberty. You see, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms isn't about guns - it's about our inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Millions of Americans see the right to protect themselves and their families as their single most important civil right (whether they exercise that right or not). It's a form of choice.
Additionally, the Second Amendment keeps hostile foreign forces foreign and keeps our government from becoming hostile.
Our Founding Fathers understood all of this when they drafted the Constitution. Every Article and Amendment is crucial. Our Founders conducted a grand experiment to create the most fertile environment possible for the human spirit to flourish. They suggested that we were all born with certain inalienable rights and the Second Amendment is their ultimate safeguard.
The Constitution doesn't give us these rights. We already have them. The Constitution just ensures that our federal government can't take them away. There was significant opposition to the Constitution over 200 years ago as probably the same ratio of people then as today were afraid of the personal responsibility that freedom requires.
What would happen if our Constitution does erode, though? 1920's Germany was a mess. The economy was in ruins and several political parties were jockying for position.


If you enjoyed reading about "Second Amendment Debate" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
February 15, 2004, 05:05 PM

Germany began with gun registration in 1928 as one of the "for the good of the people" measures. Hitler then followed up with total gun confiscation and then the Holocaust started. 21 million non-combatants were killed as a result. Despite having one of the most powerful armies in the world, the Nazis still feared the civilian ownership of firearms along with their profound disdain for people who think for themselves. The Holocaust would not have happened were it not for gun-control and all the while, many victims said, "This can't happen here. We're Germans first.".
To summarize on WWII Germany, Hitler's experiment was to eliminate the human spirit in favor of total obedience while our Founding Fathers' experiment was to unleash the full power of the human spirit. The results speak for themselves. It's important to note that similar evil exists today in many parts of the world and that those oppressed are no different than you or I. You will see the same exact human spirit in them that you see when you look in the mirror.
Many would argue that our rights come from God. Jewish law says that "If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him." Roman Catholic doctrine says that "Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow." And Protestant doctrine says that an "Individual has personal and unalienable right to self defense, even against government".
I'm of the firm belief that people are inherently good. That given the choice between good and evil, most will choose good. Unfortunately, sometimes bad things happen to good people in a free society. It gets much worse, though, as freedoms disappear.
Gun control laws ignore intent in that they are aimed at those who haven't actually done anything morally wrong. Such laws proclaim the moral content of your actions to be irrelevant. This sends a message that one's character isn't all that important, that understanding the difference between right and wrong doesn't matter and that it's more important to follow orders than to act responsibly and ethically.
On the personal level, a state the deprives its law-abiding citizens with the means to defend themselves is itself a barbaric accomplice to violent crime. On the larger scale, a government that does not trust its citizens with the right to keep and bear arms is itself not worthy of trust.
The fact is that our freedom is not dependent on how criminals behave. Guns contain no independent power to cause results apart from our decisions, character and purpose. As a matter of fact, 10 out of 10 criminals favor gun control.
It's very worthwhile to mention at this time that repealing the Second Amendment will only be honored by law-abiding citizens. A black market industry will develop, the likes of which has never before been seen. Crime will reach the highest levels in history and government response may be extremely unpredictable. The bottom line is that law-abiding citizens tend to remain so even after they're armed.
People's views on guns usually indicate their views on personal freedom. The armed citizen is the ultimate right of a free people and no one who looks to government to solve their problems can call themselves free.
In conclusion, there are many out there who place "doing us in" as their number one priority because our freedom is a tremendous threat to their tyrannical ways. It gets worse, for them, when some of their citizens flee and flourish in the United States. There are even some "terrorist" operatives in this country who had a change of heart once they experienced freedom first hand.
So, yes, the Second Amendment is as relevant as it was over 200 years ago, if not more so. The Second Amendment isn't only personal security, but it's also Homeland Security.
If you still think that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is irrelevant today then you're free to proudly display this poster (GUN FREE HOME poster) on your door. And if you still hate firearms, just understand that were it not for guns you would not be here to whine about them.
America was founded on the principles of personal security, accountability and self reliance and hasn't remained free because of far-left liberal activists. Giving up the right to arms is a mistake that a free people get to make only once.

February 15, 2004, 05:21 PM
Hitler began with gun registration in 1928 as one of his "for the good of the people" measures.

Five years before he became Chancellor.

February 15, 2004, 05:43 PM
Thank you. Change made. I knew you guys were good.

February 15, 2004, 06:12 PM
I would be careful about using Nazi Germany and the Holocaust as examples.

The 1928 Weimer gun laws were designed to stop the communists and fascists fights in the streets from breaking down into another civil war and in that aspect they worked.

Even though the Jews in the Warsaw uprising were armed it didn't stop the regular German army from surrounding the ghetto and burning them to death.

I think that the Holocaust would have happened, even with say a German second amendment, only that the scale would have been smaller, since the Germans worked through collaborators in the Jewish elite. And those civilians herded off from occupied USSR and Russian Poland would have already been disarmed since the Soviets are certainly not pro-civilian gun ownership, so the German laws would not have affected them.

Just my 2 cents.

February 15, 2004, 08:45 PM
See The Myth of Nazi Gun Control (

Also, see Aaron Zelman and Richard W. Stevens, _Death by "Gun Control"_ (Mazel Freedom press: 2001)

And Vin Suprynowizc, "The Swiss Militia" (

February 15, 2004, 08:57 PM
Ankle .. very likely you may have referenced this already but in case not ... worth a peek to glean odd extra morsels perhaps?

Standing Wolf
February 15, 2004, 09:05 PM
Logis would suggest that these incidents had absolutely not a thing to do with the law-abiding gun owner, but politicians jumped on it to pretend that they're actually doing something about these tremendous problems.

Well done!

I believe you need something stronger than "logic would suggest." I'd say, "Clearly, these incidents had nothing..."

Be firm. Be assertive. Be definite. Take—no pun intended, of course—the high road.

February 15, 2004, 10:21 PM
Final evolution. Thanks again.

February 16, 2004, 12:22 AM
Know thye enemy.

If you enjoyed reading about "Second Amendment Debate" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!