>THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
>Number 166, March 25, 2002
>Blubbery Bully-Boy
>http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe166-20020325-07.html
>
>In Defense of the Second Amendment
>by Russell D. Longcore
>[email protected]
>
>Special to TLE
>
>Today’s subject is gun control. The issue has thankfully dropped from the
>radar screen in the aftermath of September 11th. However, those who would
>outlaw gun ownership are undaunted and patient. They know that another
>school shooting or mass murder will eventually occur in the United States,
>and that event will propel this issue back onto the front pages and lead
>stories in the news media. So, let us examine the issue of gun control in
>light of history and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
>
>The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:
>
>
>”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”.
>Let’s consider the definition of the word “arms”.
>
>The Second Amendment does not define the word “arms” but leaves it open to
>definition and expansion in the future. “Arms” were not only firearms, but
>any weapon that could be used to defend one’s self or property. Why then do
>the anti-gun advocates only single out firearms as the focus of their
>desire
>to disarm Americans? Why not swords, or knives, or sharpened sticks?
>
>Next, let’s look at the word “infringe”. The Webster’s Dictionary defines
>”infringe” in two ways pertinent to this discussion; from the Latin
>”infrangere”:(1)”to break; to violate or go beyond the limits of: (2) to
>encroach upon.” In order to further explain the Second Amendment, the
>definition of the word “right” must also be considered, and is: “something
>due to one by law, custom or nature.” The “right” is the thing not to be
>infringed by government. In the Declaration of Independence, the author
>speaks of mankind being “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
>rights.” The definitions above speak directly to rights endowed to humans
>by
>natural law, and to the nature of man as a created being subject to God’s
>authority. These rights were among those enumerated as “Life, Liberty and
>the Pursuit of Happiness.” Therefore, the Second Amendment states that the
>right to keep and bear arms is one that is endowed by our Creator under
>natural law and shall not be broken, violated or encroached upon. It
>validates the concept of personal property ownership, in this case one’s
>own
>person, and the principle of self-defense.
>
>Many gun control advocates support, and have been successful in the
>criminalization of the ownership of certain automatic and semi- automatic
>weapons, the so-called “assault weapons”. They now seek to restrict the
>ownership of nearly all firearms by private citizens. Yet the issue of
>advancing technology was not an issue that the framers of the Constitution
>considered worthy of mention. These were learned men, and were well aware
>of
>the technological improvements that were made in weaponry just in their
>lifetimes. They knew world history and knew that guns and gunpowder were
>relative newcomers to the art of war.
>
>But please consider: at the time of the Revolutionary War, did not the
>Continental armies possess the same technology of armaments as the
>Redcoats?
>Yes.
>
>Hadn’t the colonial citizens owned and used firearms since the early 1600s?
>Yes!
>
>Did the English soldiers have cartridges for their rifles while the
>Colonials had only musket and ball? No. Musket and ball was the leading
>technology of the day.
>
>Did only the King have the ability to build ships, forge cannon and
>cannonball? No. John Paul Jones was a privateer, which is basically a
>government-sponsored pirate, preying on English ships. His first wartime
>command was aboard the ship Providence, owned by New England businessman
>John Brown.
>
>Both of the combatants in the Revolutionary War had the same technology in
>armaments. The Continental armies consisted of fighting citizens, taking up
>their rifles and pistols, forging cannon and going to war against superior
>numbers in the British army and navy, but not against superior weapons.
>
>Therefore, when it came time for the framers of the Constitution to
>consider
>the Amendments, they did not even mention the possibility that the private
>citizen should be prevented from owning the same weapons as the military.
>Could it be that they considered the threat of government tyranny greater
>than that of citizens owning military weapons?
>
>One of the beauties of the Constitution is its simplicity. The Second
>Amendment is written with no ambiguity in clear, simple words. Words have
>meaning. For decades now, those who would subjugate our citizens with
>Federal and State tyranny have fought to redefine the words of the Second
>Amendment. They have been successful in passing unconstitutional laws that
>do in fact infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. The framers
>understood that with freedom comes responsibility, and that the ideas and
>acts of men have consequences. Yet they entrusted to future generations
>this
>simple Amendment. They possessed the foreknowledge that this newly formed
>government would have the same potential as governments throughout history
>to decline toward tyranny and totalitarianism. This Amendment, along with
>the other original Amendments, were their lasting contribution to the
>establishment of what would become the mightiest nation in the history of
>mankind. They planted good seed in fertile ground, and God brought forth a
>nation from that seed as the people of that nation bowed their knees to His
>authority over them. Whether we remain great will be determined by how many
>of our knees remain bowed to Him.
>
>Copyright 2002, by Russell D. Longcore
>—————————————————————————-
>—-
>Death by “Gun Control”: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament, by Aaron
>Zelman and Richard W. Stevens. The new book from JPFO.
>
>Why does JPFO exist? What motivates us year after year? You can find the
>answers in our brand new book.
>
>People have asked us to present the whole JPFO argument in one place. We
>have done it. Available now in an easy-reading format and a handy size, the
>new book is entitled Death by Gun Control: The Human Cost of Victim
>Disarmament.
>
>The message is simple: Disarmed people are neither free nor safe – they
>become the criminals’ prey and the tyrants’ playthings. When the civilians
>are defenseless and their government goes bad, however, thousands and
>millions of innocents die.
>
>Order from JPFO NOW!
>http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm
>