Recently, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens made a statement decrying how, in his absence, the Supreme Court has chosen to affirm the individual’s right to keep and bear arms for their own protection and safety. He even proposed that it would be best that we amended the Second Amendment to specify that the only rights people have to keep and bear arms would be while serving in the Militia.
The general thought from there would be that a conglomeration of Federal and State regulations would be used to control people’s ability to purchase firearms – and it is assumed that such regulations would do so in a much more stringent manner than we see today.
A recent article in Yahoo News examined Justice Stevens’ remarks and pretty much complained that the political state of affairs that we see in congress today would preclude ever seeing a proposal for such a change appearing for a vote in front of Congress. The author then goes on to say that we could use the “alternative” method of amending the Constitution which is first initiated by the states. He goes on again to whine that there is probably little hope that enough states would call for a convention and that even if they did, what might come out of such a meeting might backfire on those who would love nothing more than to see more gun control in our nation.
The entire article was a liberal sulk-fest. There was obvious confusion on the part of the author. He can’t seem to come to grips with the fact that a powerful majority of Americans want MORE access to guns, not less. They want to be able to carry them EVERYWHERE they are lawfully able to go. They do not want to find themselves saddled with a hodgepodge of regulations that require them to get out of their car and subsequently unload and case their pistol when driving through a certain area (be it a city, national park, or school zone) and then stop and re-arm themselves after passing beyond the opposite border of said area.
Anti-gunners actually believe that more people in America identify with their own feelings on this issue than don’t. They believe that it’s captain obvious to everyone (even the pro-gun crowd) that we need to see guns completely removed from public possession and that “common sense” (read “harsh”) gun control regulation should be viewed as a steep compromise. In their minds, those who stand in the way of “progress” and deep-down know that it’s only a matter of time before guns are relegated to the dustbin of history. Yet, enamored with our guns and Bibles, we fight against progress. Say they.
In fact, though, we pro-gun types don’t believe in the gun-free utopia where guns only exist in the hands of law enforcement officers and the military. Deep down we really do believe that taking guns from the people is the first step to a totolatarian federal government that is hell-bend on the oppression of (even the elimination of) those who do not get on board with their “progressive” (i.e. liberal) ideology.
Truth-be-told, I wouldn’t mind seeing a change to the Second Amendment myself. The ability of the people to resist tyrannical overstepping of federal power (as seen in the Nevada cattle ranch standoff) only exists if they have the arms to make a revolutionary final stand a reality. If the Militia is representative of an ad-hoc group consisting of all men able to take up arms should the states need to throw off a government that has overstepped its bounds, then the militia should be able to be armed in the same manner as any standard company of infantry regulars would be. After all, if the shooting started, it would be infantry regulars that would be ordered to fire upon the American people, correct?
Let’s consider some of the weapons assigned to infantry units while I myself was serving as an infantry rifleman in the Marine Corps.
- Automatic M-16 – this rifle was equipped with a 3-round burst shooting mode which lands it in the “full auto” category according to the BATF. Access to fully automatic assault rifles goes without saying if the Militia is to stand their ground and fight a guerrilla war against a federal government run amok.
- Light Machine Guns – the M-249 SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) was hands-down my favorite gun that I was assigned to carry as a Marine. This belt-fed weapon has a nice rate of fire and is light enough to be handled by infantry soldiers going house-to-house on foot.
- Heavy Machine Guns – Marines MOS-assigned to machine gun teams specifically got to fire the M-240G. This is a crew served weapon that traditionally requires more than one person to properly employ. The 50-caliber BMG (Browning Machine Gun) also falls into this category. A good number of Americans should have these in their possession at all times in case they need to be mustered to stand and fight against oppression.
- Grenade Launchers – these come in different flavors. The most common is seen in the hands of a squad-leader affixed to the bottom of his M-16 rifle but fully automatic versions which are attached to vehicles should be easily accessed by law-abiding citizens as well. After all, if it’s issued to the infantry, it’s fair game for the Militia.
- Shoulder Fired Rockets – these come in single-use packaging. Pop up the sighting system, disengage the safety, aim at target, ensure nobody is behind you, and fire. Might need a few of these if the Feds send in armored vehicles against the people of the United States of America should a Second Revolution be necessary.
- One-Man Missile Systems – in the Marine Corps they used both the Predator, TOW, and Javelin missile systems. These were expensive smart weapons to be primarily used against tanks and enemy soldiers holed up in fortified positions. They were issued to Infantry Marines so they belong in the militia. Portable S.A.M. weapons are also issued to infantry regulars and would be needed by a new generation of American freedom fighters.
Now that I think about it, maybe the states calling for a convention to amend the Constitution wouldn’t be so bad. The anti’s can propose Justice Stevens’ verbiage and the pro-gun camp will offer up their own change which could read as follows:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State and of consisting of all able-bodied men who are both 18-years and older and free of past felony convictions, the individual right of the people to keep and bear Arms including but not limited to those commonly assigned to infantry regulars, shall not be infringed.”
If the current string of victories is any indication where the people of America stand where gun legislation is concerned, I’m thinking that there is more chance that the above version come out of a Constitutional Convention than the one Justice Stevens would see us shackled with. So maybe amending the Second Amendment isn’t such a bad idea after all.